Estate of Ann Rittenhouse, Deceased. ministration on his estate were duly granted to the widow and Henry R. Rittenhouse. The personalty consisted, other than the above, only of a promissory note of $40 and cash in bank of $168.50 and was appraised at $2566.91. 2. Henry R. Rittenhouse, one of the administrators, died soon thereafter and, on October 22, 1878, the account as stated by the surviving administratrix and the executors of his estate, was filed. It showed that, in the meantime, the personal estate had been enhanced in value by $830.09, whereby, after the payment of debts, and administration and operating expenses, there remained on hand unconverted "stock and goods" of the value of $1030.37 and cash of $541.91. There was still outstanding, however, an unpaid note of the decedent of $1000, which was afterwards paid by the surviving administratrix. 3. On February 3, 1879, the executors of Henry R. Rittenhouse represented to this court that the estate of David Rittenhouse had not been settled, "but will be by the co-administrator"; that all settlements between the two estates had been made; and that the petitioners had been fully released. They therefore prayed that the estate of their testator might be discharged from said administration, whereupon the prayer was granted. 4. Upon her husband's death, the young widow found herself left in possession of a large, well-stocked farm and a family of six minor children. She was equal to the emergency. With the consent of her co-administrator and the guardians of her children, she kept right on and the little personal estate of her hus band was neither converted nor distributed, except as already and hereinafter stated. She thus continued in possession and man agement of the home farm, which remains unsold, until her own. decease, intestate, in 1919. 5. Unusual as it may seem four of her children, now elderly people, still remain at home and live on this farm and the other. two continued to do so until long after they reached their majority. All, while at home, assisted in the management of, and the work about, the place and were, of course, clothed, maintained and educated out of the common funds. None was paid any compensation, as such. Until 1893, when the youngest child arrived at full age, Mrs. Rittenhouse conducted the farm and transacted all business in the name "Estate of David Rittenhouse, deceased" Estate of Ann Rittenhouse, Deceased. and was careful to take and preserve written vouchers for all her disbursements in and about the business. When that time arrived, whereby all seven interested parties had become sui juris, she ceased keeping such careful accounts. There has never been any friction or controversy in the family concerning their affairs. 6. The family was thrifty and the enterprise prospered greatly. It requires a conscious effort to refrain from expressing that commendation which, although deserved, is not sought by the family and might be regarded by them as purely gratuitous. They were plain country people not versed in the law. As their profits accumulated, with the consent, and by the agreement, of all, they were invested in the individual name of the mother. The time finally arrived when it was deemed by them advisable to purchase another farm with a part of these moneys. The same was done in 1898 and, by family agreement, the legal title to it was also taken in the mother's name alone. 7. In 1901, Jacob, one of the sons, expressed a desire to withdraw from the arrangement and requested that he be paid any sum of money that might, under it, seem to belong to him, in order that he might buy a home elsewhere. Thereupon his mother and brothers and sisters acceded to his request and, with his assistance, made an inventory "of the real and personal estate of said David Rittenhouse, deceased," (which, of course, included both farms) and found the sum total to be $22,760 from which they deducted "one-third as the widow's portion" and found a balance due the six children of $15,174, of which each was entitled to receive $2529. It was mutually agreed that said sum should be paid to Jacob "on account of his inheritance from the estate of his father." The same was done, whereupon, and "to prevent all future disputes," he executed a release in full to his mother, individaully and as administratrix, and five brothers and sisters of all further claims "on account of said mutual dealings and settlement," in which release it was expressly further recited that no final settlement of the estate had ever been made and that the widow and administratrix had, to that time, "continued farming and doing business as the estate of David Rittenhouse, deceased." 8. When Ann Rittenhouse died in 1919, after the note of $1000 had been paid, and the son Jacob had received settlement in full, as above set forth, and including the profits which had Estate of Ann Rittenhouse, Deceased. accumulated since 1901, it was found that she held assets, consisting of the farm which had been acquired in 1898, mortgage investments, a note, moneys on deposit, stock, crops and farming implements, of the value of $23,852.68, to one-third of which, or $7950.89, the direct inhertance tax appraiser found her to be individually entitled. He then deducted certain enumerated debts. and expenses therefrom and found the clear value of her estate, subject to such taxation, to be $6924.44. The commonwealth has, as stated, appealed from this appraisement and her four specifications of error raise the single question-Under the circumsstances, and within the contemplation of the act, did Ann Rittenhouse die "seized and possessed" of the whole fund of $23,852.68, whereby after proper deduction, it "passed" from her to her children? The above statement of facts, of itself and without more surely answers the question in the negative, but, in addition thereto, it is at once apparent that, if the commonwealth's contention were correct, its logical result would be that Jacob, to a substantial extent, would thereby receive a double portion of the fund. In 1901 he received his full share of his father's real estate and personal property and the additional fund which had been realized from their use in the manner already stated, and withdrew from the undertaking. If that personal property of the father and the balance of the fund, as since so substantially increased by his mother and brothers and sisters, are all now to be held as belonging to the mother at the time of her decease, intestate, it means simply that Jacob will, as to all of both, except his mother's one-third share, be, in effect, paid twice. He, so far as shown, makes no such unjust and unreasonable claim himself and yet, so far as we understand the situation, we repeat that, if it is now held that the mother owned everything involved, except the home farm, the result will necessarily be that Jacob will be entitled to take onesixth thereof as one of her heirs. Furthermore, we have the admissions of Ann Rittenhouse, as found in the release of 1901, to which she was a party, which, of themselves, effectually dispose of the matter against contention of the appellant, which seeks to place in her an absolute ownership in the very teeth of her written disclaimer of such, and the fact that neither by will, nor otherwise, did she attempt to exercise any of the attributes of such ownership. Estate of Ann Rittenhouse, Deceased. And, finally, the commonwealth is confronted by the oral testimony of David Rittenhouse, a son of the decedent, it is true, but also one of the administrators of her estate, who appeared largely as the appellant's own witness and none of whose testimony was even attempted to be contradicted. She thereby proved herself out of court. He said the business had been continued as belonging to his mother and her six children in the proportions of one-third thereof to her and the other two-thirds to them in equal one-sixth shares; that all worked in it together and without compensation; that things had been left to drift; that the mortgages held by his mother when she died had been taken with the estate's money; and that the farm which was acquired in 1898 had been bought with "estate" money, but the family had had it put in the mother's name. While the witness was no happier in the use of langauge to express his meaning than was the appraiser in his report, the fact remains that we are aware of no attempt by the commonwealth to disprove the fact, which she established, that as to all the assets held by Ann Rittenhouse at the time of her death the maximum extent of her individual beneficial interest was but one-third and, as to the rest, whether they were held by her as surviving administratrix of her deceased husband, as trustee, under a resulting trust, or otherwise, which, in the circumstances, is purely academic, the beneficial ownership was in her children, with the exception of Jacob, who released his interest therein in 1901. The same result follows if it should be determined that, as a matter of law, the true relationship of the parties was that of a partnership and it must not be lost sight of that the question of the ownership of the home farm, or the extent of the interest, if any, of Ann Rittenhouse in it, is not at all involved here. In principle the case is ruled by Gongware's Estate, decided by the Supreme Court on January 5th, 1920, but not yet reported, and is without merit. The question propounded must be answered in the negative. Being, therefore, of the opinion that the commonwealth had no right of appeal to the Orphans' Court from the appraisement of the direct inheritance tax appraiser under the act of July 11th, 1917, and that even if it had such right, its appeal in this case is without merit, it is dismissed. Workmen's Compensation Board Lupfer v. Baldwin Locomotive Works. Husband of claimant was employed as an electrician by defendants, and while pursuing his duties received a shock, which caused him to be thrown violently. He continued at work, complaining, however, of pain. Subsequently the husband contracted pleurisy, and while in a state of delirium, shot himself. The Referee found that the cause of his death was due to the injuries that he received. From this the defendant appealed to the compensation board. The appeal was dismissed because there is no evidence which shows any intervening cause for decedent's condition, and the chain of circumstances from the electric shock to the death of decedent is complete. Compensation, where an accident occurs on a certain date and death results sometime later, beings fourteen days after the date of the accident, and not after the death of decedent. Claim Petition No. 8585, District No. 1. Appeal by Defendant from Award of Compensation. Benjamin O. Frick, of Philadelphia, Pa., Attorney for Appellant. L. B. Merrifield, of Philadelphia, Pa., Attorney for Appellee. Opinion by Benjamin Jarrett, Commissioner. On July 23rd, 1919, Donald LeRoy Lupfer, deceased, the husband of the claimant, was in the employ of the defendant Company and had been for some time prior to that date. He was employed as an electrician and on the afternoon of July 23rd, 1919, while in the act of making a test to locate a grounded wire and while holding wires in his hands and at the time standing in a wet or a damp place, he received a shock of some 250 volts of electricity, which caused him to be thrown around violently and as a result of the shock he immediately complained to the men working near him that his side hurt him and the rest of the day he complained that he was sore, and he complained to his fellow workmen and his wife each day up until the following Saturday, July 26th, 1919. When he went home Saturday morning, July 26th, 1919, he complained to his wife of his condition. Dr. Walter Snyder was called and diagnosed his condition as congestion of the lungs and pleurisy, and he treated the case until the following Monday afternoon, July 28th, 1919, when he left Philadelphia on his vacation. Then Dr. Phillip S. Stout of West Philadelphia, was |