| Name |
Cole, Charles Pendexter [1] |
- Record for Charles P Cole (50) facs
Gilbertson gilbertsonc1
Charles P Cole Jr 1905-1966
BIRTH 2 SEP 1905 • Richmond Ward 5, Richmond, New York
DEATH APR 1966
20190214HAv-
Gilbertson gilbertsonc1
Charles Pendexter Cole
Charles Pendexter Cole 1876-1961
BIRTH 9 JUNE 1876 • Couldersport, Potter County, Pennsylvania
DEATH 25 FEBRUARY 1961 • Couldersport, Potter County, Pennsylvania
|
| Suffix |
Sr. |
| Birth |
1876 |
Tottenville, Staten Island, Richmond, New York, USA |
| Birth |
9 Jun 1876 |
Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] |
- DELILA (KOON) COLE died Friday morning at 12:30, ?? 1925.
Born at Knoxville, PA, September 27, 1847, and came to Coudersport when 19 years of age.
Married Lewis B. Cole Jr., in June 17, 1867.
Surviving are three sons and a daughter:
- William Burdette, b. May 17, 1874;
- Blanche, b. September 19, 1868;
- Fred Burnum Cole, b. December 9, 1872;
- Charles, b. June 9, 1876.
Two sisters also survive:
- Mrs. T. J. Gilbert, of Andover, NY and
- Mrs. William Kimball, of Ayers Hill.
Funeral at home on Maple St.
_______________________
20181201HAv-
Charles Cole Memorial Hospital
Posted 09 May 2011 by pamelavincent1
Charles Cole was born in June of 1876 and grew up in the Coudersport area.
He showed an early aptitude for sales and began a career selling pianos and organs for Smith Music Company in Olean, NY. His later association with John Patterson, then President of the National Cash Register Company, brought him in contact with Thomas Watson. When Watson set out to establish his own business, the Rochester Time and Recording Company, he sought Mr. Cole as a salesman. He enjoyed great success with the company and was encouraged to reinvest part of his salary in company stocks. This company became International Business Machines or IBM.
By late 1920, Mr. Cole had retired and returned to his beloved Coudersport. Few in the community knew of his wealth and upon his death in 1961, the extent of his fortune became known. Mr. Cole left instructions that his estate was to fund a much-needed community hospital.
Through the generosity of his widow, the former Edith Pinney, the Charles Cole Memorial Hospital was opened in September 1967.
Mrs. Cole later was married to a Chicago surgeon, G. Howard Irwin, and both maintained philanthropic interest in the Hospital until their death in the 1990s. Many of the new buildings including the Irwin Rehabilitation Center and the Irwin Medical Arts Center have been funded by the charitable trusts they established to help meet the medical needs of the community far into the future.
Charles Cole obituary 1961
Charles Cole- new modern hospital for Coudersport community March 1961
Charles Cole Memorial Hospital
Charles Cole Memorial Hospital
gilbertsonc1
gilbertsonc1 originally shared this on 15 Feb 2009
Linked To
Charles Cole
Saved by pamelavincent1
Saved by BuchananSpringer64
Saved by gilbertsonc1
Saved by EMyRus77
Saved by Thomas Wetmore
Comments
Comments
|
| Gender |
Male |
| Residence |
Between 1880 and 1900 |
Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA [1, 3] |
| Residence |
1880 |
Westfield, Staten Island, Richmond, New York, USA |
| census 1880 |
Jun 1880 |
Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA [5] |
| Age: 4; EnumerationDistrict: 102; MaritalStatus: Single; RelationToHead: Son |
- 20181201HAv-
Lewis B. Cole in the 1880 United States Federal Census
date: June 1880
enumerator: D.W. Butterworth
Name: Lewis B. Cole
Age: 72
Birth Date: Abt 1808
Birthplace: New York
Home in 1880: Coudersport Boro, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Dwelling Number: 53
Race: White
Gender: Male
Relation to Head of House: Father
Marital Status: Widower
Neighbors: View others on page
Household Members:
Name Age
53
Lewis B. Cole Jr 36 Head PA NY NY wagon manuf'er
Dellia Cole 32 wife NY NY NY keeping house
Blanch Cole 11 dau PA PA NY
Fred Cole 7 son PA PA NY
William Cole 6 son PA PA NY
Charles Cole 4 son PA PA NY
Lewis B. Cole 72 father NY __ __ at home
Florence Brown 15 servant PA
54
Alanzo Crosby 47 Head PA NY NY surveyor
Williard Crosby 35 wife NY NY NY keeping house
Jennie Crosby 4 dau PA PA NY
Myrtle Crosby 2 dau PA PA NY
Lyman Crosby 6mo son PA PA NY (Dec)
55
Amos Veley 31 Head PA NJ NJ laborer
Ella S. Veley 30 wife PA NY NY keeping house
Edgar H. Veley 8 son PA PA PA
Harry M. Veley 6 son PA PA PA
Ella N. Burt 15 at home WI NY PA at home
56
O. H. Crosby 45 Head PA NY NY carpenter
P. M. Crosby 40 wife PA NY NY keeping house
57
Thos. J. Gilbert 32 Head PA PA PA house painter
Rose Gilbert 28 wife NY NY NY keeping house
Eloise G. Gilbert 2 dau PA PA NY
58
T. B. Brown 31 Head PA PA PA Civil Engineer
Mary A. Brown 29wife PA PA PA keeping house
Martha Brown 4 dau PA PA PA
Norman Brown 2 son PA PA PA
minnie wesley 14 servant PA PA PA
59
Arthur B. Mann 36 Head PA PA PA lawyer-land agent
Marbria J. Mann 37 wife NY NY NY keeping house
Nora Mann 12 dau NY PA NY
George King 24 cous PA PA PA clerk in land office
H. Fessenden 31 boarder PA laborer
Eulalia Fessenden 23 servant PA PA PA servant
Source Citation
Year: 1880; Census Place: Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania; Roll: 1165; Page: 438B; Enumeration District: 102
Source Information
Ancestry.com and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 1880 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2010. 1880 U.S. Census Index provided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints © Copyright 1999 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved. All use is subject to the limited use license and other terms and conditions applicable to this site.
Original data: Tenth Census of the United States, 1880. (NARA microfilm publication T9, 1,454 rolls). Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29. National Archives, Washington, D.C.
|
| Residence |
1900 |
Eulalia Twp, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA |
| Residence |
1910 |
Richmond, Richmond, New York, USA [3] |
| Age in 1910: 33; ward 5, Married; Marital Status: Widowed; Relation to Head of House: Self; Relation to Head of House: Head |
| Residence |
Between 1910 and 1940 |
Richmond, Richmond, New York, USA [1, 3, 6] |
| Age: 39; Relationship: Head |
- 20190214HAv-
Charles Cole in the 1940 United States Federal Census
certificate of residence:
I hereby certify that I and the members of my household here present are not residents of HOLLYWOOD but live in COUDERSPORT...
signed: Chas Cole
date: April 13 1940
enum: Edith Cummings
Name: Charles Cole
Age: 63
birth year: abt 1877
Gender: Male
Race: White
Birthplace: Pennsylvania
Marital status: Married
Relation to Head of House: Head
where enumerated: 2232 Polk? ST
Hollywood, Florida
owned
value: $7,500
farm? no
Home in 1940: not Hollywood,
but Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania
Street: 408 Mill Street
Farm: No
Inferred Residence in 1935: Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania
Residence in 1935: Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania
Resident on farm in 1935: No
Household Members:
Name Age
Charles Cole 63 Head PA PA PA S (written over M)
Blanche Cole 71 sister PA PA PA S
Source Citation
Year: 1940; Census Place: Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania; Roll: m-t0627-03600; Enumeration District: 53-7
Source Information
Ancestry.com. 1940 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2012.
Original data: United States of America, Bureau of the Census. Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1940. T627, 4,643 rolls.
|
| Residence |
1920 |
Danby, Tompkins, New York, USA [1] |
| Retired |
1920 |
Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA |
| from IBM |
| Arrival |
23 Jun 1925 |
New York, New York, USA [1] |
| Residence |
1933 |
Staten Island, Richmond, New York, USA [1] |
| Residence |
1935 |
Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA [7] |
| Witness/inform/ref |
25 Oct 1938 |
Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA [8] |
| his brother Fred's death certificate |
- 20190214HAv-
Fred Burnam Cole in the Pennsylvania, Death Certificates, 1906-1966
Name: Fred Burnam Cole
Gender: Male
Race: White
Age: 65y 10m 16d
Birth Date: 9 Dec 1872
Birth Place: Coudersport
residence: Coudersport
status: single, retired
Death Date: 25 Oct 1938 19:10h
Death Place: Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
cause: Coronary Thrombosis
contrib: Essential? Hypertension
94b / 102
Father: Lewis Burnam Cole
born: Coudersport
Mother: Deliah Koon
born: Knoxville, PA
burial: Eulalia Cemetery
Coudersport
informant: Chas Cole
Coudersport
Certificate Number: 91237
registrar: Ruth E. Nelson
Source Citation
Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission; Pennsylvania, USA; Pennsylvania, Death Certificates, 1906-1965; Certificate Number Range: 091001-094000
Source Information
Ancestry.com. Pennsylvania, Death Certificates, 1906-1966 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2014.
Original data: Pennsylvania (State). Death certificates, 1906-1963. Series 11.90 (1,905 cartons). Records of the Pennsylvania Department of Health, Record Group 11. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
|
| Census |
13 Apr 1940 |
Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA [6] |
| certification of residence: 408 Mill Street; Age: 63; EnumerationDistrict: 53-7; OwnsFarm: No; ResidenceFarmNineteenThirtyFive: No; MaritalStatus: Married; RelationToHead: Head |
- 20190214HAv-
Charles Cole in the 1940 United States Federal Census
certificate of residence:
I hereby certify that I and the members of my household here present are not residents of HOLLYWOOD but live in COUDERSPORT...
signed: Chas Cole
Name: Charles Cole
Age: 63
birth year: abt 1877
Gender: Male
Race: White
Birthplace: Pennsylvania
Marital status: Married
Relation to Head of House: Head
Home in 1940: not Hollywood,
but Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania
Street: 408 Mill Street
Farm: No
Inferred Residence in 1935: Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania
Residence in 1935: Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania
Resident on farm in 1935: No
Household Members:
Name Age
Charles Cole 63 Head PA PA PA S (written over M)
Blanche Cole 71 sister PA PA PA S
Source Citation
Year: 1940; Census Place: Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania; Roll: m-t0627-03600; Enumeration District: 53-7
Source Information
Ancestry.com. 1940 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2012.
Original data: United States of America, Bureau of the Census. Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1940. T627, 4,643 rolls.
|
| census 1940 |
17 Apr 1940 |
Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA [7] |
| StreetAddress: Mill Street; Age: 63; AttendedSchool: No; EmploymentCode: 8; EmploymentDetails: Other; EmploymentHistory: No; EnumerationDistrict: 53-6; GradeCompleted: Elementary school, 8th grade; HomeOwnership: Owned; Income: 0; IncomeOtherSources: Yes; IsEmployed: No; OwnsFarm: No; PublicEmergencyWork: No; SeekingWork: No; ValueOfHome: 4000; WeeksWorked: 0; MaritalStatus: Single; RelationToHead: Head |
- 20200111HAv-
Bertha G Leete in the 1940 United States Federal Census
date: April 17, 1940
Robert N. Pinney
Name: Bertha G Leete
Age: 57
birth: abt 1883
Gender: Female
Race: White
Birthplace: New York
Marital status: Widowed
Relation to Head of House: Head
Home in 1940: Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania
Street: Isabel
House Number: 103
Farm: No
Inferred Residence in 1935: Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania
Residence in 1935: Same House
Sheet Number: 12B
Number of Household in Order of Visitation: 277
House Owned or Rented: Owned
Value of Home or Monthly Rental if Rented: 3500
Attended School or College: No
Highest Grade Completed: High School, 4th year
Weeks Worked in 1939: 0
Income: 0
Income Other Sources: Yes
Neighbors: View others on page
Household Members:
Name Age
Giles C. Hauber 57 Head PA sh M C2 Register Recorder, public office
Lottie B. Hauber 56 wife PA sh M 8
Mama E Cole 60 Head PA Gr PA wd H2
12B
John R Cole 30 son PA sh s proprietor, service station, gas & oil
Frederick E Cole 33 son PA sh m Proprietor, service station, gas & oil
Nettie O Cole 23 dau-law PA sh m
Charles Cole 63 Head PA sh single
Blanche Cole 70 sister PA sh single
William A Shear 18 Head Can sh
Grace A Shear 68 wife NY sh proprietor, Natural Curiosity
Grace L Shear 28 dau PA sh teacher, elementary public school
Thomous R Shear 28 son PA sh helper, Natural Curiosity
Bertha G Leete 57 Head NY sh wd
Ralph F Leete 20 son PA sh s
Thomous W Leete 17 son PA sh s odd jobs, paper delivery
Source Citation
Year: 1940; Census Place: Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania; Roll: m-t0627-03600; Page: 12B; Enumeration District: 53-6
Name Birth Residence
John R Cole Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Frederick E Cole Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Nettie O Cole Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Charles Cole Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Blanche Cole Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
William A Shear Canada 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Grace A Shear New York 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Grace L Shear Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Thomous R Shear Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Anna Vosberg P New Jersey 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Harold W Vosberg Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Isabel L Vosberg P New York 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Howard R Smith Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Velma R Smith Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Marilyn J Smith Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Emory J Lorance Illinois 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Margaret A Lorance Texas 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Lloyd Lorance Missouri 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Fannie C Pinney Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Robert N Pinney Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Bertha G Leete New York 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Ralph F Leete Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Thomous W Leete Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Eva M Neefe Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Gertrude A Neefe Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Clinton A Clark Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Ellen H Clark Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Addison H Clark Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Diana J Clark Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Clinton A Clark Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
George A Odonnell Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Charles Stine PA Maryland 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Emelia C Geabe New York 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Francis M O'Connell Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Francis L Doyle Eire 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Margaret Kennedy England 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Mary J Coleman Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Katherine K Covey Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Richard F Covey Pennsylvania 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Clarence D Kiehle New York 1940 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Source Information
Ancestry.com. 1940 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2012.
Original data: United States of America, Bureau of the Census. Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1940. T627, 4,643 rolls.
20200111HAv-
Record for Charles Cole (6) facts
Charles & Blanche Cole in the 1940 United States Federal Census
date: April 17, 1940
Robert N. Pinney
Name: Charles Cole
Age: 63
Estimated birth year: abt 1877
Gender: Male
Race: White
Birthplace: Pennsylvania
Marital status: Single
Relation to Head of House: Head
Home in 1940: Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania
Street: Mill Street
House Number: 408
Farm: No
Inferred Residence in 1935: Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania
Residence in 1935: Same House
Sheet Number: 12B
Number of Household in Order of Visitation: 271
House Owned or Rented: Owned
Value of Home or Monthly Rental if Rented: 4000
Attended School or College: No
Highest Grade Completed: Elementary school, 8th grade
Weeks Worked in 1939: 0
Income: 0
Income Other Sources: Yes
Household Members:
Name Age
Charles Cole 63
Blanche Cole 70
|
| Departure |
Habana, Ciego de Avila, Cuba [1] |
| LDS |
Charles P. Cole L2QD-4RH [9] |
- 20181201HAv-
Sarah M Cole L2QD-HCZ
birth: 16 March 1908, New York City, New York
death: October 1983, Staten Island, Richmond, New York
father: Charles P. Cole L2QD-4RH
mother: Edith M Wood L2QD-W9Q
|
| LDS |
spouse: Charles Cole M2KY-ZDQ [10] |
- 20181202HAv-
Edith Pinney LVF3-7GY
birth: 30 January 1901, Pennsylvania
death: 28 January 1995, Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania
father: Norman A Pinney LVF3-9GX
mother: Fannie Connolly LWPH-65L
spouse: Charles Cole M2KY-ZDQ
Edith Pinney
30 January 1901 - 28 January 1995 • LVF3-7GY??
Female
Edith Pinney 1901-1995 • LVF3-7GY??
Edith Pinney
Sex • Female
Birth • 30 January 1901 Pennsylvania
Death • 28 January 1995 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania
Edith Pinney
Residence • 1910 Coudersport Ward 2, , Pennsylvania
Residence • 1920 Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania
Family Members
Spouses and Children
Charles Cole 1876-1961 • M2KY-ZDQ??
Marriage: 1958
Edith Pinney 1901-1995 • LVF3-7GY??
Children of Edith Pinney and Charles Cole (0)
George Howard Irwin 1895-1991 • LR4B-KLK??
Marriage: 1975 Chicago, Cook, Illinois
Edith Pinney 1901-1995 • LVF3-7GY??
Children of Edith Pinney and George Howard Irwin
Parents and Siblings
Norman A Pinney 1842-1929 • LVF3-9GX??
Marriage: 27 Jul 1898 Potter, Pennsylvania
Fannie Connolly 1874-1957 • LWPH-65L??
Children of Fannie Connolly and Norman A Pinney (2)
Robert Norman Pinney 1889-1961 • LVF3-766??
Edith Pinney 1901-1995 • LVF3-7GY??
|
| LifeSketch |
Charles Cole was born in June 1876 and grew up in the Coudersport area. He showed an early aptitude for sales and began a career selling pianos and organs for Smith Music Company in Olean, N.Y. His association with John Patterson, then president of the National Cash Register Company, brought him in contact with Thomas Watson. When Watson set out to establish his own business, the Rochester Time and Recording Company, he sought Cole as a salesman. Cole enjoyed great success with the company and was encouraged to reinvest part of his salary in company stocks. This company became International Business Machines, or IBM. By late 1920, Cole had retired and returned to his beloved Coudersport. Few in the community knew of his wealth until his death in 1961, when the extent of his fortune became known. Cole left instructions that his estate was to fund a much-needed community hospital. Through the generosity of his widow, the former Edith Pinney, the Cole Memorial opened in September 1967. Mrs. Cole later married a Chicago surgeon, G. Howard Irwin, and both maintained philanthropic interest in the hospital until their deaths in the 1990s. Many of the new buildings, including the Irwin Rehabilitation Center and the Irwin Medical Arts Center, have been funded by the charitable trusts they established to help meet the medical needs of the community far into the future. |
- Charles Cole was born in June 1876 and grew up in the Coudersport area. He showed an early aptitude for sales and began a career selling pianos and organs for Smith Music Company in Olean, N.Y. His association with John Patterson, then president of the National Cash Register Company, brought him in contact with Thomas Watson. When Watson set out to establish his own business, the Rochester Time and Recording Company, he sought Cole as a salesman. Cole enjoyed great success with the company and was encouraged to reinvest part of his salary in company stocks. This company became International Business Machines, or IBM.
By late 1920, Cole had retired and returned to his beloved Coudersport. Few in the community knew of his wealth until his death in 1961, when the extent of his fortune became known. Cole left instructions that his estate was to fund a much-needed community hospital. Through the generosity of his widow, the former Edith Pinney, the Cole Memorial opened in September 1967. Mrs. Cole later married a Chicago surgeon, G. Howard Irwin, and both maintained philanthropic interest in the hospital until their deaths in the 1990s. Many of the new buildings, including the Irwin Rehabilitation Center and the Irwin Medical Arts Center, have been funded by the charitable trusts they established to help meet the medical needs of the community far into the future.
|
| Residence |
1953 |
Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA |
| Cole, Chas r 408 Mill 186-J |
- 20190709HAv-
Richard Neefe?You know you're from Coudersport, PA if..........
July 1 · 2019
p. 8 B-C
Boyd, Casper W r Coudy RD4 536-J-1
Boyd, Jos H r Sweden Valley 881-R-2
Brock, H & Sons scrap mtls 208 Vine 53
Brock, Norman S r 1 Allegany av 620
Brock, Ronald r Coudy RD2 548-J-3
Brock, Walter r 208 Vine 648
Brocklebank, LR r East 720-J
Bryington, Robt r Sweden Hill 505-J-4
Bryington, Warren E r Coudy RD 458
Buchsen, Geo r Coudy RD3 508-R-3
Buchsenschutz, Wm r 107 West 4 st 212-M
Bunker, GE r Hebron Center 524-J-12
Bunnell, Alfred J r 209 Beech 72-R
Bunnell, Henry r 775 N Main 351-J
Burdick, AR r Crandall Hill 548-R-1
Burdick, Arden J r 6 Ave A 615-J
Burrows, Sam J r North Hollow 502-J-11
Burt, Lyman M r 802 S Main 572
Burt, Menzo M Mrs r 107 E 2 st 685
Butz, Wilson r 22 Ave B 74-M
Campbell, Elmer E r Davidge 655-J
Campbell, Jas H r Main 583-J
Campbell, Jas P r Coudy RD5 21-J
Campbell, Kathleen Mrs r 105 E 7 st 702-W
Cane, HE r 203 Cartee 218
Carey, Albert F r 12 Ave A 227-R
Carey, Horace H r 7th st 129-W
Carey, Wm L r 205 Vine 670-M
Carey's Dry Goods & Shoes...
Carley, Harry L r Coudy 507-J-3
Carl's Texas Lunch...
Carpenter, AJ r Coudy 524-R-2
Carpenter, CC r 316? Oak 169-W
Carpenter, ER r 208? Beech 772
Carpenter, Mark L r Coudy RD2 524-R-3
Carpenter, Wells A r 104 Water 319-W
Carpenter, Wm A r 307 S West 743
Carter, Clinton J r 104 Chestnut 400
Carts, Clifford B r 108 Allegany av 163
Case, Jas G r Coudy RD3 519-J-4
Castano, DJ r 601 N West 579-J
Castano, Dominic J tlr 109 N East 596
Castano, Frank r 19 S Main 275-M
Chastain, Laura Lyman Mrs drgst 2 E 2 st 20
Chastain, Laura Lyman Mrs r 402 N East 399
Chilson, Dayton r 11 East 48-J
Chilson, Gilbert r Ave A 318-R
Chilson, Lloyd O r Mill 269
Chilson, Mark r 412 Ross 125-W
Chitester, Palmer R r 504 Maple 700
Clark, Addison H r E Maple 97-J
Clark, LeRoy F r Coudy RD2 506-R-4
Clark, Lucille S r 410 Ross 125-J
Clark, M Mrs r 710 West 177-R
Clark, Milford r Coudy RD1 390-J-1
Clark, Ned P r Coudy RD1 606-J-2
Cline, Homer L r 601 S Main 281-J
Cobb, Daniel H r Coudy RD4 576-R-1
Cobb, Diana M r 105 S Main 190
Colcord, MJ r 405 N Main 100-J
Cole, Adna M r 407 N Main 781
Cole, Chas r 408 Mill 186-J
Cole, Fred E r 10 Woodlawn av 703-J
Conable, ED r Coudy 450-R-2
Conable, Reynold r Ford Hill 568-R-3
Conable, Richard r Ford Hill 568-R-11
Cook, Jas F Rev r 3 Borie 188-W
Cook, Lula B Mrs r E 2 st 317-J
Cook, Merle H r Coudy RD2 503-J-3
Cook, Sheffield S r 201 Cartee 138-R
Cooper, Warren B r 409 Park av 131-M
Coppersmith, LN r 302 Cartee 9-W
Coppersmith's furn...
Corey, Edwin r 410 Ross 599-W
Corey, Glenn H r Coudy RD4 517-J-13
CostaJos S r 407 Oak 728
Costa's Electric Store...
10You and 9 others
8 Comments
Like
Comments
Sue Mitchell
???? Mary Mitchell
Like · Reply · 1w
Beth Rice
Tami Hood
1Like · Reply · 1w
Tami Hood
Sandy Dunn, Sharon Butler Traylor
1Like · Reply · 1w
Sharon Butler Traylor
Carl’s Texas lunch
Carl Butler
1Like · Reply · 1w
Dale Ulkins
Sharon Butler Traylor I wanna call and get a hoagie to go.
Like · Reply · 1w
Sharon Butler Traylor
Dale Ulkins get me one
Like · Reply · 1w
Dale Ulkins
Sharon Butler Traylor Will do!
Like · Reply · 1w
Beth Rice
i missed that one
1Like · Reply · 1w
|
 |
At least one living or private individual is linked to this item - Details withheld.
|
| Will |
Abt 1961 |
Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA |
| Area Man's Will Bequeaths Fund For New Hospital |
| Endowed (LDS) |
Abt 1961 |
Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA |
- 20181201HAv-
Charles Cole
Coudersport, Pennsylvania
Area Man's Will Bequeaths Fund For New Hospital
Area Man's Will Bequeaths Fund For New Hospital
-- Coudersport -- A bequest was made by the late Charles Cole, 84, 408 Mill St, Coudersport, who died Feb. 25, 1961, in the Potter County Memorial Hospital, setting up a trust fund sufficient to construct and fully equip a new modern hospital in Coudersport or vicinity.
Mr. Cole named his widow and Walter P. Wells, president judge of Potter County, trustees for the hospital fund. Senator James S. Berger will be named estate attorney, Judge Wells stated today.
The contents of the will revealed that the Potter County Philanthropist desired "a fully equiped moodern hospital, suitable to the needs of the community, to be known as the 'Cole Memorial Hospital."
The bequest also proves an endowment for the operation and maintenance of a charity ward in the institution.
Mr. Cole had expressed his belief that the community needed a more suitable hospital and that the present two-story 48-bed capacity frame structure was inadequate for the community.
Mr. Cole had traveled through-out the United States during his affiliation with the National Cash Register Company for many years and later with the International Business Machines. He had retired in 1926.
_____________
20181201HAv-
Charles Cole $4,000,000 Cole Memorial Hospital
9 Jun 1961
Kane, Pennsylvania
pamelavincent1
pamelavincent1 originally shared this on 09 Mar 2017
Linked To
Charles Cole
Saved by pamelavincent1
Saved by LARRY HERBSTRITT
Comments
Town Bequeathed
$4,000,000 Legacy
- Coudersport - H.H. Pett, president of the Potter County Memorial Hospital board at its annual meeting her, announced a legacy of $4,000,000 was bequeathed by the late Charles Cole, multi-millionaire Coudersport resident, for the construction and equipping of a modern hospital to serve Potter County.
Any discussion of the new hospital is premature, Mr. Pett stated, because the Cole estate may not be settled for three or four years. Reactivated was the committee of:
- Dr. George Mosch,
- John Riggs (Rigas? -jcw),
- Thomas Hessin,
- Howard Glenn, and
- James Ponder, named a year ago to investigate fund raising potentials and a site for a proposed new hospital building.
- Area Man's Will Bequeaths Fund For New Hospital
|
 |
Cole, Chas news will for hospital anc_pamelavincent1 20181201HAv-
Charles Cole
Coudersport, Pennsylvania
Area Man's Will Bequeaths Fund For New Hospital
pamelavincent1
pamelavincent1 originally shared this on 07 May 2011
Linked To
Charles Cole
Saved by eyesec
Saved by pamelavincent1
Saved by BuchananSpringer64
Saved by gilbertsonc1
Saved by EMyRus77
Saved by suereese999
Comments
Area Man's Will… |
 |
Cole, Chas $4,000,000 Cole Mem Hosp anc_pamelavincent1 20181201HAv-
Charles Cole $4,000,000 Cole Memorial Hospital
9 Jun 1961
Kane, Pennsylvania
pamelavincent1
pamelavincent1 originally shared this on 09 Mar 2017
Linked To
Charles Cole
Saved by pamelavincent1
Saved by LARRY HERBSTRITT
Comments
Town Bequeathed
$4,000,000 Legacy
- Coudersport - H.H. Pett, president of the Potter County Memorial… |
| Death |
25 Feb 1961 |
Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA [1, 2, 3, 4] |
- http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/1962/406-pa-81-0.html
Justia › U.S. Law › Case Law › Pennsylvania Case Law › Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Decisions › 1962 › Cole v. Wells
Cole v. Wells
406 Pa. 81 (1962)
Cole, Appellant, v. Wells.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued November 20, 1961.
January 2, 1962.
*82 Before BELL, C.J., MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN and ALPERN, JJ.
Miles Warner, with him Robert J. Flint, for appellant.
S. Dale Furst, Jr., with him James S. Berger, Elton F. Carlson, and Furst, McCormick, Muir, Lynn & Reeder, for appellee.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BENJAMIN R. JONES, January 2, 1962:
*83 This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County which dismissed a complaint in equity seeking discovery from the executor of a decedent's estate "of all facts and circumstances having to do with the execution of the instrument [decedent's last will] offered for probate".
Charles Cole, 84 years of age, died on February 25, 1961 in Coudersport survived by his wife, Edith P. Cole, to whom he had been married in 1958, and two nephews, Frederick Cole (the appellant) and his brother, John Cole. It is estimated that the value of decedent's estate is $9,000,000. On March 4, 1961, Walter P. Wells, [appellee],[1] as executor under the alleged will, offered for probate to the Register of Wills of Potter County a four page instrument bearing date "this [2] day of October, 1958", the backer of which instrument bore the names "Hornburg, Andrews & Diggs", and had thereon the date August 13, 1953. The signature indicated the will had been signed during decedent's last illness. Under this will, inter alia, decedent's two nephews are each given a pecuniary legacy of $10,000 and a trust of the entire residuary estate created whereunder the widow receives a life interest and, upon the widow's death, the entire residuary estate is to be devoted to the erection and endowment of a memorial hospital. This instrument was probated as decedent's last will and letters testamentary[3] were issued to appellee. No appeal from this probate has been taken.
*84 On May 17, 1961, appellant[4] caused a summons in equity to be issued in the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County. Six weeks later, having been ruled to do so by appellee, appellant filed a complaint in equity.[5] To this complaint appellee filed preliminary objections raising the following questions: (1) that there is no possible action at law or equity which forms the basis for a complaint in the form filed so that the complaint does not conform to any law or rule of court; (2) that the complaint is so permeated with surplusage and scandalous and impertinent matter that such surplusage and matter cannot be separated from the matter which is pertinent and relevant; (3) in the absence of an allegation of any cause of action in support of which discovery is sought, discovery will not lie; (4) in the absence of an allegation of any infringement of rights by appellee, discovery a collateral right to assist in the determination of other rights, will not lie. The court below entered a decree dismissing the complaint and from that decree this appeal has been taken. The rationale of the opinion of the court below is that appellant is trying to use discovery in the Common Pleas Court to garner information for a will contest and that appellant has "ample remedies in the Orphans' Court should its jurisdiction be properly invoked".
The complaint consists of 27 paragraphs and attached to the complaint are 7 exhibits, 5 of which are items of correspondence between appellant, appellee or appellee's counsel and 2 of which relate to the notice *85 for and a schedule of taking of depositions. The first 9 paragraphs relate in detail much of the factual background previously set forth in this opinion: paragraph 10 avers that the will is irregular on its face in that the backer bears the date "August 13, 1953", the end of the will bears the blank date "this day of October, [1958]" and the signature indicates it was affixed during decedent's last illness (February, 1961).
Paragraphs 11-14, inclusive, relate an interview between John Cole and appellee in February 1961 together with a letter (Exhibit A) from appellee to John Cole subsequent to such interview; two interviews in April 1961 between appellant's counsel and appellee, each interview followed by a letter from said counsel to appellee purporting to set forth what took place at each interview (Exhibits B, C) and a letter (Exhibit D) from appellee to appellant's counsel dated May 22, 1961. By reason of that which took place at these interviews, together with appellee's letter of May 22, 1961, appellant charges that appellee, who drew the will, withheld deliberately the fact that appellee had drawn the will and the fact that, during decedent's last illness, appellee had drawn a power of attorney from decedent to decedent's wife, and that appellee had refused to permit an inspection of not only the power of attorney but also several of decedent's insurance policies. As appellant avers the ". . . variances [illustrated by what took place at the interviews and what appellee stated in his letter of May 22, 1961] bear on the circumstances" of (1) the execution of the will, (2) the decedent's testamentary capacity, (3) the present whereabouts of decedent's prior will or wills, and (4) whether the will was executed within 30 days of decedent's death.
Paragraph 15 avers that appellant's counsel concluded that the "circumstances suggested" that appellee had exerted undue influence in the execution of the will, that decedent lacked testamentary capacity and that the *86 will was executed during decedent's last illness and that in "the light of this conclusion" appellant instituted this action. According to the averments of this paragraph, the "initial purpose" of this action is: (a) to compel the disclosure of facts by appellee and certain other witnesses; (b) on discovery of such facts, to file an amended complaint setting forth such right of action as the facts show to exist; (c) to safeguard, by injunctive relief, documents, and other instruments; (d) to enjoin appellee from using his judicial office as a means of interference with witnesses; (e) to enforce appellee's duty of disclosure as executor.
Paragraphs 16-24, inclusive, relate that appellant, under Rule 4007, Pa. R.C.P., had served notice on appellee and eight other witnesses for taking their depositions; that, thereafter, a conference took place between appellee, his counsel, appellant's counsel and counsel for decedent's widow and, as a result thereof, the time of taking depositions was continued to dates suggested by appellee and notice thereof was duly given; that later appellee notified appellant's counsel he would not be present for the taking of depositions; of the seven other witnesses subpoenaed, only three witnesses appeared. It is then charged "that the [appellee] had taken affirmative measures to counsel and procure their [the four witnesses'] absence . . ."
Paragraph 25 avers that, unless appellant is quickly given the right to take depositions of appellee and these four witnesses, appellant "apprehends" that appellee will use his influence to confuse their recollection, to make them less available and will hinder by other means the taking of depositions. Paragraph 26 avers that appellant "apprehends" that appellee "intends to subvert and destroy" the utility of taking depositions by "inducing" the court "to sanction an irregular procedure under which the Court will sit ad hoc to make advisory rulings on matters of discovery while depositions *87 are actually under way". Paragraph 27 avers that appellant's remedies at law are inadequate, that he intends to take the depositions of another group of witnesses and that appellee's attempt to hinder the right of discovery may result in irreparable damage to appellant.
The relief sought in this complaint is: (1) that appellee be enjoined from interfering with appellant's right of discovery; (2) that appellee be enjoined from "advising, counselling and procuring . . . witnesses. . . to disobey" the process of the court and not to appear for depositions; (3) that appellee be ordered to safeguard "all documents, instruments, papers, wills and other things, in his possession" having to do with the "person, property or estate" of decedent; (4) that appellee be ordered as executor to make a "full and frank disclosure" of all facts "having to do with the execution" of the will.
The charges contained in this complaint directed to any person would be grave; when directed against one occupying a judicial position they are doubly grave. However, the gravity of such charges does not vest a court with jurisdiction to hear the charges if jurisdiction does not exist. Our problem is to ascertain whether the court below was correct in its conclusion that it did not have jurisdiction.
To a suitor seeking discovery two methods are open: either under the Act of 1836, as extended,[6] or under Rule 4001 et seq. of Pa. R.C.P. It is far from clear on this record which method appellant has chosen. The Act of 1836 (Section 13), as extended, grants the power and jurisdiction of courts of chancery to courts of common pleas over: "III. The discovery of facts material to a just determination of issues, and other questions *88 arising or depending in the said courts". (Emphasis supplied) In O'Brien v. O'Brien, 362 Pa. 66, 70, 66 A.2d 309, Mr. Justice (later Chief Justice) STERN stated: "It is axiomatic that a bill for discovery in aid of an action or defense at law cannot be maintained if the action or the defense itself cannot be maintained; this is because a bill for discovery . . . is wholly an ancillary proceeding, and if the asserted claim is itself invalid a bill for discovery in support of it must necessarily fall on demurrer: [citing cases]." (Emphasis supplied) See also: Peoples City Bank v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 353 Pa. 123, 130, 131, 44 A.2d 514; Holland v. Hallahan, 211 Pa. 223, 226, 60 A. 735; Liegey v. Clearfield Textile Co., 149 Pa. Superior Ct. 433, 437, 438, 27 A.2d 545; Erb Estate, 11 Fiduc. Rep. 630. It is clear beyond doubt that the equitable power of a court of common pleas should not be exercised, under the Act of 1836, supra, in aid of discovery unless there is an action brought and pending. Absent such action brought and pending, discovery cannot be had. Pa. R.C.P. 4001(a) also makes evident that depositions can be taken only in connection with a pending action: "The rules of this chapter apply to any civil action or proceeding at law or in equity brought in or appealed to any court which is subject to these rules." (Emphasis supplied)
Is there a pending action in the case at bar? The only action brought is the present equity suit which is an action to enforce the right of discovery and not an action to enforce any other right of appellant. Appellant argues that, once the facts are known, he may have either of two actions at law: (1) an action at law against appellee on the ground that he exerted undue influence on decedent either to make this will or not to change this will which deprived appellant of the right to a substantial inheritance (Mangold v. Neuman, 371 Pa. 496, 91 A.2d 904; Marshall v. DeHaven, 209 *89 Pa. 187, 58 A. 141), or (2) an action at law to enforce a contract made between decedent and appellant that the former would provide for the latter generously in his will if the latter would remove to Coudersport and care for him. Furthermore, appellant can attack the validity of the will in the Orphans' Court or challenge in the same court the validity of the gift to the hospital. While all these actions are possibilities the fact remains that none has been instituted and none are pending. It is no answer that appellant does not know which, if any, to institute; action could be started and, if for the preparation of the pleadings, knowledge of more facts became necessary, then discovery could be had. Particularly apropos to what appellant is attempting to do is the language of this Court in Elk Brewing Co. v. Neubert, 213 Pa. 171, 176, 62 A. 782: "It is not open to doubt, however, that if discovery is used as a mere pretense to give jurisdiction, it would be a gross abuse to entertain a suit in equity when the whole foundation upon which it rests is either disproved or is shown to be a colorable disguise for the purpose of changing the forum of litigation . . ."
In the present posture of this controversy discovery cannot be had.
An examination of the complaint clearly reveals the ultimate purpose of appellant to be the institution of a will contest in the Orphans' Court. Paragraph 15 makes this crystal clear. It avers that as "a result of facts developed by investigation", appellant's counsel concluded "that the circumstances suggested" undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity and the likelihood that the will was executed during decedent's last illness. Then it is averred that "[i]n the light of this conclusion", the present action was instituted.
As the court below stated: "Actually what the plaintiff here appears to be trying to do is to use discovery in Common Pleas to garner information for a *90 will contest. His allegations charging undue influence, lack of testamentary capacity, execution during thirty (30) days before death, and his wide and scattershot claims for discovery (or as he says in the concluding sentence of Paragraph 24-A of the Amended Complaint, `and all other facts and circumstances bearing on or affecting the validity of the testamentary disposition offered for probate on or about March 4, 1961') can have but one connotation that he is trying in every conceivable way to unearth information for a will contest.
"`The orphans' court has exclusive jurisdiction over the settlement, administration and distribution of a decedent's estate.' Thomas v. Johnston, 356 Pa. 570, `The Register of Wills Act of 1917 . . . confers jurisdiction upon the register to probate wills. The Orphans' Court Act of 1917 . . . grants jurisdiction to the orphans' court in all appeals from the orders and decrees of the register. The remedy and method of procedure relating to probate and contest of wills being prescribed by these statutes, their provisions must be strictly pursued and exclusively applied (citing cases) . . .' Sheerin v. Beattie, 365 Pa. 510. `The court of common pleas even as a court of equity, cannot interfere in a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the orphans' court.' Trout v. Lukey, 402 Pa. 123. Even though the jurisdictional question is not raised by the preliminary objections, we are required to consider it. Trout v. Lukey, supra; Patterson's Estate, 341 Pa. 177.
"It would indeed be an anomaly to allow discovery in a court which is without jurisdiction to hear the issues towards which such discovery is directed and in a proceeding which is ancillary in nature. Neither logic, nor an understanding of the procedure and nature of probate proceedings and will contests would sustain such an irregular proceeding. The decree of probate by the Register of Wills constitutes a judicial decree in *91 rem, which is conclusive upon all the world, and is not subject to collateral attack in the Court of Common Pleas, Mangold v. Neuman, 371 Pa. 496. A decree of probate may not be reversed or avoided collaterally in any other court, and is liable only to direct attack by appeal. Hunter Vol. 5, page 170. There are situations, as illustrated in Mangold v. Neuman, supra, which are outside the jurisdiction of a probate or orphans' court, but they are by their nature not an attack on the will itself, and hence, do not constitute an impeachment of the decree of probate. This is clearly not such a case, for the obvious end towards which this proceeding is directed is an attack upon the will itself and matters related thereto.
"The Orphans' Court has `all legal and equitable powers required for or incidental to the exercise of its jurisdiction,' 20 P.S. Sec. 2080.304. `The court by general rule or special order, may prescribe the practice relating to depositions, discovery, and, production of the documents. To the extent not provided for by general rule or special order, the practice relating to such matters shall conform to the practice in the local court of common pleas.' 20 P.S. Sec. 2080.742. Rule 6, Sec. 3, O.C. Supreme Court Rules also so provides. It should be clear, therefore, that plaintiff has ample remedies in the Orphans' Court should its jurisdiction be properly invoked."
The court below wisely and properly dismissed this complaint. Discovery is a valuable right recognized as such by our courts for many years but discovery must not be allowed unless it is sought as a proceeding ancillary to a pending action and in the appropriate forum.
Decree affirmed. Costs on appellant.
NOTES
[1] Walter P. Wells is now and for ten years has been the President Judge and only judge of the courts in Potter County. He disqualified himself and Judge Abraham H. Lipez was assigned by this Court to preside in this proceeding.
[2] A blank appeared in the date.
[3] Appellee and the widow were named under the will as executors and trustees. The widow renounced her rights as executrix in favor of the appellee.
[4] Appellant, a nephew, alleges that in 1948 he and his family resided in California, that decedent requested that appellant and his family move to Coudersport and assured appellant that he and his family would be generously provided for in his will, that they did move to Coudersport and from that time until decedent's death cared for him.
[5] In the meantime, appellant had filed notice of certain pretrial depositions to be taken of various persons, including appellee.
[6] Act of June 16, 1836, P.L. 784 (17 PS § 282), as extended by the Act of February 14, 1857, P.L. 39, § 1 (17 PS § 283). It is to be noted that Rule 4023 did not suspend the Act of 1836.
- Age: 84 buried Eulalia Cemetery
|
| Burial |
27 Feb 1961 |
Eulalia Cemetery, Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA [1, 2, 3, 4] |
- http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/1962/406-pa-81-0.html
Justia › U.S. Law › Case Law › Pennsylvania Case Law › Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Decisions › 1962 › Cole v. Wells
Cole v. Wells
406 Pa. 81 (1962)
Cole, Appellant, v. Wells.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued November 20, 1961.
January 2, 1962.
*82 Before BELL, C.J., MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN and ALPERN, JJ.
Miles Warner, with him Robert J. Flint, for appellant.
S. Dale Furst, Jr., with him James S. Berger, Elton F. Carlson, and Furst, McCormick, Muir, Lynn & Reeder, for appellee.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BENJAMIN R. JONES, January 2, 1962:
*83 This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County which dismissed a complaint in equity seeking discovery from the executor of a decedent's estate "of all facts and circumstances having to do with the execution of the instrument [decedent's last will] offered for probate".
Charles Cole, 84 years of age, died on February 25, 1961 in Coudersport survived by his wife, Edith P. Cole, to whom he had been married in 1958, and two nephews, Frederick Cole (the appellant) and his brother, John Cole. It is estimated that the value of decedent's estate is $9,000,000. On March 4, 1961, Walter P. Wells, [appellee],[1] as executor under the alleged will, offered for probate to the Register of Wills of Potter County a four page instrument bearing date "this [2] day of October, 1958", the backer of which instrument bore the names "Hornburg, Andrews & Diggs", and had thereon the date August 13, 1953. The signature indicated the will had been signed during decedent's last illness. Under this will, inter alia, decedent's two nephews are each given a pecuniary legacy of $10,000 and a trust of the entire residuary estate created whereunder the widow receives a life interest and, upon the widow's death, the entire residuary estate is to be devoted to the erection and endowment of a memorial hospital. This instrument was probated as decedent's last will and letters testamentary[3] were issued to appellee. No appeal from this probate has been taken.
*84 On May 17, 1961, appellant[4] caused a summons in equity to be issued in the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County. Six weeks later, having been ruled to do so by appellee, appellant filed a complaint in equity.[5] To this complaint appellee filed preliminary objections raising the following questions: (1) that there is no possible action at law or equity which forms the basis for a complaint in the form filed so that the complaint does not conform to any law or rule of court; (2) that the complaint is so permeated with surplusage and scandalous and impertinent matter that such surplusage and matter cannot be separated from the matter which is pertinent and relevant; (3) in the absence of an allegation of any cause of action in support of which discovery is sought, discovery will not lie; (4) in the absence of an allegation of any infringement of rights by appellee, discovery a collateral right to assist in the determination of other rights, will not lie. The court below entered a decree dismissing the complaint and from that decree this appeal has been taken. The rationale of the opinion of the court below is that appellant is trying to use discovery in the Common Pleas Court to garner information for a will contest and that appellant has "ample remedies in the Orphans' Court should its jurisdiction be properly invoked".
The complaint consists of 27 paragraphs and attached to the complaint are 7 exhibits, 5 of which are items of correspondence between appellant, appellee or appellee's counsel and 2 of which relate to the notice *85 for and a schedule of taking of depositions. The first 9 paragraphs relate in detail much of the factual background previously set forth in this opinion: paragraph 10 avers that the will is irregular on its face in that the backer bears the date "August 13, 1953", the end of the will bears the blank date "this day of October, [1958]" and the signature indicates it was affixed during decedent's last illness (February, 1961).
Paragraphs 11-14, inclusive, relate an interview between John Cole and appellee in February 1961 together with a letter (Exhibit A) from appellee to John Cole subsequent to such interview; two interviews in April 1961 between appellant's counsel and appellee, each interview followed by a letter from said counsel to appellee purporting to set forth what took place at each interview (Exhibits B, C) and a letter (Exhibit D) from appellee to appellant's counsel dated May 22, 1961. By reason of that which took place at these interviews, together with appellee's letter of May 22, 1961, appellant charges that appellee, who drew the will, withheld deliberately the fact that appellee had drawn the will and the fact that, during decedent's last illness, appellee had drawn a power of attorney from decedent to decedent's wife, and that appellee had refused to permit an inspection of not only the power of attorney but also several of decedent's insurance policies. As appellant avers the ". . . variances [illustrated by what took place at the interviews and what appellee stated in his letter of May 22, 1961] bear on the circumstances" of (1) the execution of the will, (2) the decedent's testamentary capacity, (3) the present whereabouts of decedent's prior will or wills, and (4) whether the will was executed within 30 days of decedent's death.
Paragraph 15 avers that appellant's counsel concluded that the "circumstances suggested" that appellee had exerted undue influence in the execution of the will, that decedent lacked testamentary capacity and that the *86 will was executed during decedent's last illness and that in "the light of this conclusion" appellant instituted this action. According to the averments of this paragraph, the "initial purpose" of this action is: (a) to compel the disclosure of facts by appellee and certain other witnesses; (b) on discovery of such facts, to file an amended complaint setting forth such right of action as the facts show to exist; (c) to safeguard, by injunctive relief, documents, and other instruments; (d) to enjoin appellee from using his judicial office as a means of interference with witnesses; (e) to enforce appellee's duty of disclosure as executor.
Paragraphs 16-24, inclusive, relate that appellant, under Rule 4007, Pa. R.C.P., had served notice on appellee and eight other witnesses for taking their depositions; that, thereafter, a conference took place between appellee, his counsel, appellant's counsel and counsel for decedent's widow and, as a result thereof, the time of taking depositions was continued to dates suggested by appellee and notice thereof was duly given; that later appellee notified appellant's counsel he would not be present for the taking of depositions; of the seven other witnesses subpoenaed, only three witnesses appeared. It is then charged "that the [appellee] had taken affirmative measures to counsel and procure their [the four witnesses'] absence . . ."
Paragraph 25 avers that, unless appellant is quickly given the right to take depositions of appellee and these four witnesses, appellant "apprehends" that appellee will use his influence to confuse their recollection, to make them less available and will hinder by other means the taking of depositions. Paragraph 26 avers that appellant "apprehends" that appellee "intends to subvert and destroy" the utility of taking depositions by "inducing" the court "to sanction an irregular procedure under which the Court will sit ad hoc to make advisory rulings on matters of discovery while depositions *87 are actually under way". Paragraph 27 avers that appellant's remedies at law are inadequate, that he intends to take the depositions of another group of witnesses and that appellee's attempt to hinder the right of discovery may result in irreparable damage to appellant.
The relief sought in this complaint is: (1) that appellee be enjoined from interfering with appellant's right of discovery; (2) that appellee be enjoined from "advising, counselling and procuring . . . witnesses. . . to disobey" the process of the court and not to appear for depositions; (3) that appellee be ordered to safeguard "all documents, instruments, papers, wills and other things, in his possession" having to do with the "person, property or estate" of decedent; (4) that appellee be ordered as executor to make a "full and frank disclosure" of all facts "having to do with the execution" of the will.
The charges contained in this complaint directed to any person would be grave; when directed against one occupying a judicial position they are doubly grave. However, the gravity of such charges does not vest a court with jurisdiction to hear the charges if jurisdiction does not exist. Our problem is to ascertain whether the court below was correct in its conclusion that it did not have jurisdiction.
To a suitor seeking discovery two methods are open: either under the Act of 1836, as extended,[6] or under Rule 4001 et seq. of Pa. R.C.P. It is far from clear on this record which method appellant has chosen. The Act of 1836 (Section 13), as extended, grants the power and jurisdiction of courts of chancery to courts of common pleas over: "III. The discovery of facts material to a just determination of issues, and other questions *88 arising or depending in the said courts". (Emphasis supplied) In O'Brien v. O'Brien, 362 Pa. 66, 70, 66 A.2d 309, Mr. Justice (later Chief Justice) STERN stated: "It is axiomatic that a bill for discovery in aid of an action or defense at law cannot be maintained if the action or the defense itself cannot be maintained; this is because a bill for discovery . . . is wholly an ancillary proceeding, and if the asserted claim is itself invalid a bill for discovery in support of it must necessarily fall on demurrer: [citing cases]." (Emphasis supplied) See also: Peoples City Bank v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 353 Pa. 123, 130, 131, 44 A.2d 514; Holland v. Hallahan, 211 Pa. 223, 226, 60 A. 735; Liegey v. Clearfield Textile Co., 149 Pa. Superior Ct. 433, 437, 438, 27 A.2d 545; Erb Estate, 11 Fiduc. Rep. 630. It is clear beyond doubt that the equitable power of a court of common pleas should not be exercised, under the Act of 1836, supra, in aid of discovery unless there is an action brought and pending. Absent such action brought and pending, discovery cannot be had. Pa. R.C.P. 4001(a) also makes evident that depositions can be taken only in connection with a pending action: "The rules of this chapter apply to any civil action or proceeding at law or in equity brought in or appealed to any court which is subject to these rules." (Emphasis supplied)
Is there a pending action in the case at bar? The only action brought is the present equity suit which is an action to enforce the right of discovery and not an action to enforce any other right of appellant. Appellant argues that, once the facts are known, he may have either of two actions at law: (1) an action at law against appellee on the ground that he exerted undue influence on decedent either to make this will or not to change this will which deprived appellant of the right to a substantial inheritance (Mangold v. Neuman, 371 Pa. 496, 91 A.2d 904; Marshall v. DeHaven, 209 *89 Pa. 187, 58 A. 141), or (2) an action at law to enforce a contract made between decedent and appellant that the former would provide for the latter generously in his will if the latter would remove to Coudersport and care for him. Furthermore, appellant can attack the validity of the will in the Orphans' Court or challenge in the same court the validity of the gift to the hospital. While all these actions are possibilities the fact remains that none has been instituted and none are pending. It is no answer that appellant does not know which, if any, to institute; action could be started and, if for the preparation of the pleadings, knowledge of more facts became necessary, then discovery could be had. Particularly apropos to what appellant is attempting to do is the language of this Court in Elk Brewing Co. v. Neubert, 213 Pa. 171, 176, 62 A. 782: "It is not open to doubt, however, that if discovery is used as a mere pretense to give jurisdiction, it would be a gross abuse to entertain a suit in equity when the whole foundation upon which it rests is either disproved or is shown to be a colorable disguise for the purpose of changing the forum of litigation . . ."
In the present posture of this controversy discovery cannot be had.
An examination of the complaint clearly reveals the ultimate purpose of appellant to be the institution of a will contest in the Orphans' Court. Paragraph 15 makes this crystal clear. It avers that as "a result of facts developed by investigation", appellant's counsel concluded "that the circumstances suggested" undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity and the likelihood that the will was executed during decedent's last illness. Then it is averred that "[i]n the light of this conclusion", the present action was instituted.
As the court below stated: "Actually what the plaintiff here appears to be trying to do is to use discovery in Common Pleas to garner information for a *90 will contest. His allegations charging undue influence, lack of testamentary capacity, execution during thirty (30) days before death, and his wide and scattershot claims for discovery (or as he says in the concluding sentence of Paragraph 24-A of the Amended Complaint, `and all other facts and circumstances bearing on or affecting the validity of the testamentary disposition offered for probate on or about March 4, 1961') can have but one connotation that he is trying in every conceivable way to unearth information for a will contest.
"`The orphans' court has exclusive jurisdiction over the settlement, administration and distribution of a decedent's estate.' Thomas v. Johnston, 356 Pa. 570, `The Register of Wills Act of 1917 . . . confers jurisdiction upon the register to probate wills. The Orphans' Court Act of 1917 . . . grants jurisdiction to the orphans' court in all appeals from the orders and decrees of the register. The remedy and method of procedure relating to probate and contest of wills being prescribed by these statutes, their provisions must be strictly pursued and exclusively applied (citing cases) . . .' Sheerin v. Beattie, 365 Pa. 510. `The court of common pleas even as a court of equity, cannot interfere in a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the orphans' court.' Trout v. Lukey, 402 Pa. 123. Even though the jurisdictional question is not raised by the preliminary objections, we are required to consider it. Trout v. Lukey, supra; Patterson's Estate, 341 Pa. 177.
"It would indeed be an anomaly to allow discovery in a court which is without jurisdiction to hear the issues towards which such discovery is directed and in a proceeding which is ancillary in nature. Neither logic, nor an understanding of the procedure and nature of probate proceedings and will contests would sustain such an irregular proceeding. The decree of probate by the Register of Wills constitutes a judicial decree in *91 rem, which is conclusive upon all the world, and is not subject to collateral attack in the Court of Common Pleas, Mangold v. Neuman, 371 Pa. 496. A decree of probate may not be reversed or avoided collaterally in any other court, and is liable only to direct attack by appeal. Hunter Vol. 5, page 170. There are situations, as illustrated in Mangold v. Neuman, supra, which are outside the jurisdiction of a probate or orphans' court, but they are by their nature not an attack on the will itself, and hence, do not constitute an impeachment of the decree of probate. This is clearly not such a case, for the obvious end towards which this proceeding is directed is an attack upon the will itself and matters related thereto.
"The Orphans' Court has `all legal and equitable powers required for or incidental to the exercise of its jurisdiction,' 20 P.S. Sec. 2080.304. `The court by general rule or special order, may prescribe the practice relating to depositions, discovery, and, production of the documents. To the extent not provided for by general rule or special order, the practice relating to such matters shall conform to the practice in the local court of common pleas.' 20 P.S. Sec. 2080.742. Rule 6, Sec. 3, O.C. Supreme Court Rules also so provides. It should be clear, therefore, that plaintiff has ample remedies in the Orphans' Court should its jurisdiction be properly invoked."
The court below wisely and properly dismissed this complaint. Discovery is a valuable right recognized as such by our courts for many years but discovery must not be allowed unless it is sought as a proceeding ancillary to a pending action and in the appropriate forum.
Decree affirmed. Costs on appellant.
NOTES
[1] Walter P. Wells is now and for ten years has been the President Judge and only judge of the courts in Potter County. He disqualified himself and Judge Abraham H. Lipez was assigned by this Court to preside in this proceeding.
[2] A blank appeared in the date.
[3] Appellee and the widow were named under the will as executors and trustees. The widow renounced her rights as executrix in favor of the appellee.
[4] Appellant, a nephew, alleges that in 1948 he and his family resided in California, that decedent requested that appellant and his family move to Coudersport and assured appellant that he and his family would be generously provided for in his will, that they did move to Coudersport and from that time until decedent's death cared for him.
[5] In the meantime, appellant had filed notice of certain pretrial depositions to be taken of various persons, including appellee.
[6] Act of June 16, 1836, P.L. 784 (17 PS § 282), as extended by the Act of February 14, 1857, P.L. 39, § 1 (17 PS § 283). It is to be noted that Rule 4023 did not suspend the Act of 1836.
Charles Cole
Birth: Jun. 9, 1876
Pennsylvania, USA
Death: Feb. 25, 1961
Family links:
Parents:
Lewis Barnum Cole (1843 - 1907)
Delila Koon Cole (1847 - 1925)
Siblings:
Blanche B Cole (1868 - 1958)*
Frederick Burnum Cole (1872 - 1938)*
Charles Cole (1876 - 1961)
*Calculated relationship
Burial: Eulalia Cemetery
Coudersport, Potter County
Pennsylvania, USA
Created by: Law-Miller Roots
Record added: Apr 22, 2009
Find A Grave Memorial# 36208074
- Age: 84 buried Eulalia Cemetery
|
| Obituary |
Mar 1961 |
Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA |
- 20181201HAv-
Charles Cole Memorial Hospital
Posted 09 May 2011 by pamelavincent1
Charles Cole was born in June of 1876 and grew up in the Coudersport area.
He showed an early aptitude for sales and began a career selling pianos and organs for Smith Music Company in Olean, NY. His later association with John Patterson, then President of the National Cash Register Company, brought him in contact with Thomas Watson. When Watson set out to establish his own business, the Rochester Time and Recording Company, he sought Mr. Cole as a salesman. He enjoyed great success with the company and was encouraged to reinvest part of his salary in company stocks. This company became International Business Machines or IBM.
By late 1920, Mr. Cole had retired and returned to his beloved Coudersport. Few in the community knew of his wealth and upon his death in 1961, the extent of his fortune became known. Mr. Cole left instructions that his estate was to fund a much-needed community hospital.
Through the generosity of his widow, the former Edith Pinney, the Charles Cole Memorial Hospital was opened in September 1967.
Mrs. Cole later was married to a Chicago surgeon, G. Howard Irwin, and both maintained philanthropic interest in the Hospital until their death in the 1990s. Many of the new buildings including the Irwin Rehabilitation Center and the Irwin Medical Arts Center have been funded by the charitable trusts they established to help meet the medical needs of the community far into the future.
Charles Cole obituary 1961
Charles Cole- new modern hospital for Coudersport community March 1961
Charles Cole Memorial Hospital
Charles Cole Memorial Hospital
gilbertsonc1
gilbertsonc1 originally shared this on 15 Feb 2009
Linked To
Charles Cole
Saved by pamelavincent1
Saved by BuchananSpringer64
Saved by gilbertsonc1
Saved by EMyRus77
Saved by Thomas Wetmore
Comments
20210217HAv-
Lanny Nunn
15 Fevruary 2021 · Coudersport...
Charles Cole - Maxine Shear
at 408 Mill Street, Coudersport
Comments
Ken Cole
Great Uncle Charles, at the house @ 408 Mill St. The Shear house is in the background.
· Reply · 2d
Angela Howard
Ken Cole
Wish there was a pic of the house at 408 Mill St.
We lived there too. Grigsbys
· Reply · 2d
Linda Setzer Cole Lohr
Oh WOW that's awesome! I wonder how old they were or the year...? So young!!
· Reply · 2d
Mike Thierfelder
Maybe 1935 plus or minus a couple?
· Reply · 2d
Robert Hau
Tom Shears mother
I guess it would be Charlie Coles dad or uncle.
· Reply · 2d
Ken Cole
Right Bob, our fathers Uncle.
· Reply · 1d
Brenda Kenealy Williams
What a super picture
· Reply · 2d
Don Betz
wow
· Reply · 2d
Georgiana Gillon Kiely
WOW That was awhile ago
· Reply · 2d
Gretchen Songster
Great photo!!
· Reply · 1d
Paul Lynn Gardner
Many of us knew Maxine, maybe a few knew Charles. Love the photo.
· Reply · 1d
Linda Setzer Cole Lohr
Paul Lynn Gardner Maxine looks like 10 or 12 years old.
· Reply · 1d
Linda Marie
I worked for Maxine at the Ice Mine summers through high school. Very nice to work for treated me like a daughter.
· Reply · 23h
Linda Setzer Cole Lohr
Awesome car in the background too.
· Reply · 1d
Joanne Regg Simmons
The benefacter (Charles Cole) of the Coudersport, Pa.Hospital. Nice photo.????????
· Reply · 1d
Richard Neefe
Great post Lanny.
· Reply · 1d
Netra Magill Baker
Oh my
· Reply · 1d
Deb Bliss Plummer
Laurie Shear
· Reply · 1d
Millie Jones
Charles Cole ~ was he a physician or a politician ????
· Reply · 1d
Ken Cole
Neither. He was just a local philanthropist who sold IBM machines in the early days & had enough sense to buy stock in the company.
· Reply · 1d
Millie Jones
Ken Cole Thanks I always thought he was a physician & I am 83 & old enough to remember the ‘old small’ Coudersport Hospital ... My daughter-in-law has been @ Charles Cole Memorial about 42 years plus ...
· Reply · 1d
Ken Cole
My mother, Nettie, was a nurse there, old & new hospitals, for about 30 years, I believe.
· Reply · 7h
Write a reply…
Lugene Clara Heimel
Paul and I now live in the Shear home which we purchased in the late 1980's.
· Reply · 1d
Paul Lynn Gardner
Upon his death, Charles Cole bequeathed $6,000,000 to the community, replacing the Potter County Memorial Hospital. That hospital has since been expanded to the campus we see today.
· Reply · 23h
Paul W. Heimel
Paul Lynn Gardner Do you have any knowledge as to the particulars of that bequest when it came to providing health care to the poor? Was there a fund established to ensure that his wishes were honored? I have always heard that but, so many years later and with the UPMC merger, I've heard little mention of that.
· Reply · 21h
Mary Durst
Paul W. Heimel , I also had that understanding, but I believe that, like the government, over the years, adminitrators at the hospital saw fit to use that fund for more important things.
· Reply · 11h
Paul Lynn Gardner
Paul W. Heimel I personally didn’t know Charles Cole, however his widow was known to many of us in the 1960s after the “big news” broke. Ken Cole can probably confirm this, but knowledge of his wealth wasn’t revealed until his death and everyone said that Charley himself didn’t even know how much he was worth. All I remember was that it was big news to this humble community. I do not recall anything being said of “health care to the poor”, but instead simply building a new hospital took the headlines.
Since moving to Blair County, I coincidentally have come to know the third generation of the family “JC Orr” that built the original hospital in Coudersport. Joseph Orr III remembers traveling to Coudersport in the ‘60s with his grandfather during the construction. Joe III has since taken over the business and has contracted some of the recent improvements to the hospital. They also did rehab work on the Iron Bridge behind the Consistory.
Checking out the hospital website, I found the following:
“Charles Cole was born in June 1876 and grew up in the Coudersport area. He showed an early aptitude for sales and began a career selling pianos and organs for Smith Music Company in Olean, N.Y. His association with John Patterson, then president of the National Cash Register Company, brought him in contact with Thomas Watson. When Watson set out to establish his own business, the Rochester Time and Recording Company, he sought Cole as a salesman. Cole enjoyed great success with the company and was encouraged to reinvest part of his salary in company stocks. This company became International Business Machines, or IBM.
By late 1920, Cole had retired and returned to his beloved Coudersport. Few in the community knew of his wealth until his death in 1961, when the extent of his fortune became known. Cole left instructions that his estate was to fund a much-needed community hospital. Through the generosity of his widow, the former Edith Pinney, the Cole Memorial opened in September 1967. Mrs. Cole later married a Chicago surgeon, G. Howard Irwin, and both maintained philanthropic interest in the hospital until their deaths in the 1990s. Many of the new buildings, including the Irwin Rehabilitation Center and the Irwin Medical Arts Center, have been funded by the charitable trusts they established to help meet the medical needs of the community far into the future.”
· Reply · 10h
Write a reply…
James Mitchell
Maxine is my aunt and my mothers side. My mother is a Shear
· Reply · 20h
William Fricke
James Mitchell That's Alice's old house.
· Reply · 13h
Write a reply…
|
 |
Cole, Chas w Maxine Shear 408MillSt FB210215LNCou 20210217HAv-
Lanny Nunn
15 Fevruary 2021 · Coudersport...
Charles Cole - Maxine Shear
at 408 Mill Street, Coudersport
Comments
Ken Cole
Great Uncle Charles, at the house @ 408 Mill St. The Shear house is in the background.
· Reply · 2d
Angela Howard
Ken Cole
Wish there was a pic of the house at 408 Mill St.
We lived there too. Grigsbys
·… |
| litigation |
20 Nov 1961 |
Harrisburg, Dauphin, Pennsylvania, USA |
| Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Cole, Appellant, v. Wells. |
- http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/1962/406-pa-81-0.html
Justia › U.S. Law › Case Law › Pennsylvania Case Law › Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Decisions › 1962 › Cole v. Wells
Cole v. Wells
406 Pa. 81 (1962)
Cole, Appellant, v. Wells.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued November 20, 1961.
January 2, 1962.
*82 Before BELL, C.J., MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN and ALPERN, JJ.
Miles Warner, with him Robert J. Flint, for appellant.
S. Dale Furst, Jr., with him James S. Berger, Elton F. Carlson, and Furst, McCormick, Muir, Lynn & Reeder, for appellee.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BENJAMIN R. JONES, January 2, 1962:
*83 This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County which dismissed a complaint in equity seeking discovery from the executor of a decedent's estate "of all facts and circumstances having to do with the execution of the instrument [decedent's last will] offered for probate".
Charles Cole, 84 years of age, died on February 25, 1961 in Coudersport survived by his wife, Edith P. Cole, to whom he had been married in 1958, and two nephews, Frederick Cole (the appellant) and his brother, John Cole. It is estimated that the value of decedent's estate is $9,000,000. On March 4, 1961, Walter P. Wells, [appellee],[1] as executor under the alleged will, offered for probate to the Register of Wills of Potter County a four page instrument bearing date "this [2] day of October, 1958", the backer of which instrument bore the names "Hornburg, Andrews & Diggs", and had thereon the date August 13, 1953. The signature indicated the will had been signed during decedent's last illness. Under this will, inter alia, decedent's two nephews are each given a pecuniary legacy of $10,000 and a trust of the entire residuary estate created whereunder the widow receives a life interest and, upon the widow's death, the entire residuary estate is to be devoted to the erection and endowment of a memorial hospital. This instrument was probated as decedent's last will and letters testamentary[3] were issued to appellee. No appeal from this probate has been taken.
*84 On May 17, 1961, appellant[4] caused a summons in equity to be issued in the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County. Six weeks later, having been ruled to do so by appellee, appellant filed a complaint in equity.[5] To this complaint appellee filed preliminary objections raising the following questions: (1) that there is no possible action at law or equity which forms the basis for a complaint in the form filed so that the complaint does not conform to any law or rule of court; (2) that the complaint is so permeated with surplusage and scandalous and impertinent matter that such surplusage and matter cannot be separated from the matter which is pertinent and relevant; (3) in the absence of an allegation of any cause of action in support of which discovery is sought, discovery will not lie; (4) in the absence of an allegation of any infringement of rights by appellee, discovery a collateral right to assist in the determination of other rights, will not lie. The court below entered a decree dismissing the complaint and from that decree this appeal has been taken. The rationale of the opinion of the court below is that appellant is trying to use discovery in the Common Pleas Court to garner information for a will contest and that appellant has "ample remedies in the Orphans' Court should its jurisdiction be properly invoked".
The complaint consists of 27 paragraphs and attached to the complaint are 7 exhibits, 5 of which are items of correspondence between appellant, appellee or appellee's counsel and 2 of which relate to the notice *85 for and a schedule of taking of depositions. The first 9 paragraphs relate in detail much of the factual background previously set forth in this opinion: paragraph 10 avers that the will is irregular on its face in that the backer bears the date "August 13, 1953", the end of the will bears the blank date "this day of October, [1958]" and the signature indicates it was affixed during decedent's last illness (February, 1961).
Paragraphs 11-14, inclusive, relate an interview between John Cole and appellee in February 1961 together with a letter (Exhibit A) from appellee to John Cole subsequent to such interview; two interviews in April 1961 between appellant's counsel and appellee, each interview followed by a letter from said counsel to appellee purporting to set forth what took place at each interview (Exhibits B, C) and a letter (Exhibit D) from appellee to appellant's counsel dated May 22, 1961. By reason of that which took place at these interviews, together with appellee's letter of May 22, 1961, appellant charges that appellee, who drew the will, withheld deliberately the fact that appellee had drawn the will and the fact that, during decedent's last illness, appellee had drawn a power of attorney from decedent to decedent's wife, and that appellee had refused to permit an inspection of not only the power of attorney but also several of decedent's insurance policies. As appellant avers the ". . . variances [illustrated by what took place at the interviews and what appellee stated in his letter of May 22, 1961] bear on the circumstances" of (1) the execution of the will, (2) the decedent's testamentary capacity, (3) the present whereabouts of decedent's prior will or wills, and (4) whether the will was executed within 30 days of decedent's death.
Paragraph 15 avers that appellant's counsel concluded that the "circumstances suggested" that appellee had exerted undue influence in the execution of the will, that decedent lacked testamentary capacity and that the *86 will was executed during decedent's last illness and that in "the light of this conclusion" appellant instituted this action. According to the averments of this paragraph, the "initial purpose" of this action is: (a) to compel the disclosure of facts by appellee and certain other witnesses; (b) on discovery of such facts, to file an amended complaint setting forth such right of action as the facts show to exist; (c) to safeguard, by injunctive relief, documents, and other instruments; (d) to enjoin appellee from using his judicial office as a means of interference with witnesses; (e) to enforce appellee's duty of disclosure as executor.
Paragraphs 16-24, inclusive, relate that appellant, under Rule 4007, Pa. R.C.P., had served notice on appellee and eight other witnesses for taking their depositions; that, thereafter, a conference took place between appellee, his counsel, appellant's counsel and counsel for decedent's widow and, as a result thereof, the time of taking depositions was continued to dates suggested by appellee and notice thereof was duly given; that later appellee notified appellant's counsel he would not be present for the taking of depositions; of the seven other witnesses subpoenaed, only three witnesses appeared. It is then charged "that the [appellee] had taken affirmative measures to counsel and procure their [the four witnesses'] absence . . ."
Paragraph 25 avers that, unless appellant is quickly given the right to take depositions of appellee and these four witnesses, appellant "apprehends" that appellee will use his influence to confuse their recollection, to make them less available and will hinder by other means the taking of depositions. Paragraph 26 avers that appellant "apprehends" that appellee "intends to subvert and destroy" the utility of taking depositions by "inducing" the court "to sanction an irregular procedure under which the Court will sit ad hoc to make advisory rulings on matters of discovery while depositions *87 are actually under way". Paragraph 27 avers that appellant's remedies at law are inadequate, that he intends to take the depositions of another group of witnesses and that appellee's attempt to hinder the right of discovery may result in irreparable damage to appellant.
The relief sought in this complaint is: (1) that appellee be enjoined from interfering with appellant's right of discovery; (2) that appellee be enjoined from "advising, counselling and procuring . . . witnesses. . . to disobey" the process of the court and not to appear for depositions; (3) that appellee be ordered to safeguard "all documents, instruments, papers, wills and other things, in his possession" having to do with the "person, property or estate" of decedent; (4) that appellee be ordered as executor to make a "full and frank disclosure" of all facts "having to do with the execution" of the will.
The charges contained in this complaint directed to any person would be grave; when directed against one occupying a judicial position they are doubly grave. However, the gravity of such charges does not vest a court with jurisdiction to hear the charges if jurisdiction does not exist. Our problem is to ascertain whether the court below was correct in its conclusion that it did not have jurisdiction.
To a suitor seeking discovery two methods are open: either under the Act of 1836, as extended,[6] or under Rule 4001 et seq. of Pa. R.C.P. It is far from clear on this record which method appellant has chosen. The Act of 1836 (Section 13), as extended, grants the power and jurisdiction of courts of chancery to courts of common pleas over: "III. The discovery of facts material to a just determination of issues, and other questions *88 arising or depending in the said courts". (Emphasis supplied) In O'Brien v. O'Brien, 362 Pa. 66, 70, 66 A.2d 309, Mr. Justice (later Chief Justice) STERN stated: "It is axiomatic that a bill for discovery in aid of an action or defense at law cannot be maintained if the action or the defense itself cannot be maintained; this is because a bill for discovery . . . is wholly an ancillary proceeding, and if the asserted claim is itself invalid a bill for discovery in support of it must necessarily fall on demurrer: [citing cases]." (Emphasis supplied) See also: Peoples City Bank v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 353 Pa. 123, 130, 131, 44 A.2d 514; Holland v. Hallahan, 211 Pa. 223, 226, 60 A. 735; Liegey v. Clearfield Textile Co., 149 Pa. Superior Ct. 433, 437, 438, 27 A.2d 545; Erb Estate, 11 Fiduc. Rep. 630. It is clear beyond doubt that the equitable power of a court of common pleas should not be exercised, under the Act of 1836, supra, in aid of discovery unless there is an action brought and pending. Absent such action brought and pending, discovery cannot be had. Pa. R.C.P. 4001(a) also makes evident that depositions can be taken only in connection with a pending action: "The rules of this chapter apply to any civil action or proceeding at law or in equity brought in or appealed to any court which is subject to these rules." (Emphasis supplied)
Is there a pending action in the case at bar? The only action brought is the present equity suit which is an action to enforce the right of discovery and not an action to enforce any other right of appellant. Appellant argues that, once the facts are known, he may have either of two actions at law: (1) an action at law against appellee on the ground that he exerted undue influence on decedent either to make this will or not to change this will which deprived appellant of the right to a substantial inheritance (Mangold v. Neuman, 371 Pa. 496, 91 A.2d 904; Marshall v. DeHaven, 209 *89 Pa. 187, 58 A. 141), or (2) an action at law to enforce a contract made between decedent and appellant that the former would provide for the latter generously in his will if the latter would remove to Coudersport and care for him. Furthermore, appellant can attack the validity of the will in the Orphans' Court or challenge in the same court the validity of the gift to the hospital. While all these actions are possibilities the fact remains that none has been instituted and none are pending. It is no answer that appellant does not know which, if any, to institute; action could be started and, if for the preparation of the pleadings, knowledge of more facts became necessary, then discovery could be had. Particularly apropos to what appellant is attempting to do is the language of this Court in Elk Brewing Co. v. Neubert, 213 Pa. 171, 176, 62 A. 782: "It is not open to doubt, however, that if discovery is used as a mere pretense to give jurisdiction, it would be a gross abuse to entertain a suit in equity when the whole foundation upon which it rests is either disproved or is shown to be a colorable disguise for the purpose of changing the forum of litigation . . ."
In the present posture of this controversy discovery cannot be had.
An examination of the complaint clearly reveals the ultimate purpose of appellant to be the institution of a will contest in the Orphans' Court. Paragraph 15 makes this crystal clear. It avers that as "a result of facts developed by investigation", appellant's counsel concluded "that the circumstances suggested" undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity and the likelihood that the will was executed during decedent's last illness. Then it is averred that "[i]n the light of this conclusion", the present action was instituted.
As the court below stated: "Actually what the plaintiff here appears to be trying to do is to use discovery in Common Pleas to garner information for a *90 will contest. His allegations charging undue influence, lack of testamentary capacity, execution during thirty (30) days before death, and his wide and scattershot claims for discovery (or as he says in the concluding sentence of Paragraph 24-A of the Amended Complaint, `and all other facts and circumstances bearing on or affecting the validity of the testamentary disposition offered for probate on or about March 4, 1961') can have but one connotation that he is trying in every conceivable way to unearth information for a will contest.
"`The orphans' court has exclusive jurisdiction over the settlement, administration and distribution of a decedent's estate.' Thomas v. Johnston, 356 Pa. 570, `The Register of Wills Act of 1917 . . . confers jurisdiction upon the register to probate wills. The Orphans' Court Act of 1917 . . . grants jurisdiction to the orphans' court in all appeals from the orders and decrees of the register. The remedy and method of procedure relating to probate and contest of wills being prescribed by these statutes, their provisions must be strictly pursued and exclusively applied (citing cases) . . .' Sheerin v. Beattie, 365 Pa. 510. `The court of common pleas even as a court of equity, cannot interfere in a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the orphans' court.' Trout v. Lukey, 402 Pa. 123. Even though the jurisdictional question is not raised by the preliminary objections, we are required to consider it. Trout v. Lukey, supra; Patterson's Estate, 341 Pa. 177.
"It would indeed be an anomaly to allow discovery in a court which is without jurisdiction to hear the issues towards which such discovery is directed and in a proceeding which is ancillary in nature. Neither logic, nor an understanding of the procedure and nature of probate proceedings and will contests would sustain such an irregular proceeding. The decree of probate by the Register of Wills constitutes a judicial decree in *91 rem, which is conclusive upon all the world, and is not subject to collateral attack in the Court of Common Pleas, Mangold v. Neuman, 371 Pa. 496. A decree of probate may not be reversed or avoided collaterally in any other court, and is liable only to direct attack by appeal. Hunter Vol. 5, page 170. There are situations, as illustrated in Mangold v. Neuman, supra, which are outside the jurisdiction of a probate or orphans' court, but they are by their nature not an attack on the will itself, and hence, do not constitute an impeachment of the decree of probate. This is clearly not such a case, for the obvious end towards which this proceeding is directed is an attack upon the will itself and matters related thereto.
"The Orphans' Court has `all legal and equitable powers required for or incidental to the exercise of its jurisdiction,' 20 P.S. Sec. 2080.304. `The court by general rule or special order, may prescribe the practice relating to depositions, discovery, and, production of the documents. To the extent not provided for by general rule or special order, the practice relating to such matters shall conform to the practice in the local court of common pleas.' 20 P.S. Sec. 2080.742. Rule 6, Sec. 3, O.C. Supreme Court Rules also so provides. It should be clear, therefore, that plaintiff has ample remedies in the Orphans' Court should its jurisdiction be properly invoked."
The court below wisely and properly dismissed this complaint. Discovery is a valuable right recognized as such by our courts for many years but discovery must not be allowed unless it is sought as a proceeding ancillary to a pending action and in the appropriate forum.
Decree affirmed. Costs on appellant.
NOTES
[1] Walter P. Wells is now and for ten years has been the President Judge and only judge of the courts in Potter County. He disqualified himself and Judge Abraham H. Lipez was assigned by this Court to preside in this proceeding.
[2] A blank appeared in the date.
[3] Appellee and the widow were named under the will as executors and trustees. The widow renounced her rights as executrix in favor of the appellee.
[4] Appellant, a nephew, alleges that in 1948 he and his family resided in California, that decedent requested that appellant and his family move to Coudersport and assured appellant that he and his family would be generously provided for in his will, that they did move to Coudersport and from that time until decedent's death cared for him.
[5] In the meantime, appellant had filed notice of certain pretrial depositions to be taken of various persons, including appellee.
[6] Act of June 16, 1836, P.L. 784 (17 PS § 282), as extended by the Act of February 14, 1857, P.L. 39, § 1 (17 PS § 283). It is to be noted that Rule 4023 did not suspend the Act of 1836.
|
| Race |
White [4, 5, 6, 7] |
| Name |
Charles Cole [5, 6, 7] |
- 20181201HAv-
Lewis B. Cole in the 1880 United States Federal Census
date: June 1880
enumerator: D.W. Butterworth
Name: Lewis B. Cole
Age: 72
Birth Date: Abt 1808
Birthplace: New York
Home in 1880: Coudersport Boro, Potter, Pennsylvania, USA
Dwelling Number: 53
Race: White
Gender: Male
Relation to Head of House: Father
Marital Status: Widower
Neighbors: View others on page
Household Members:
Name Age
53
Lewis B. Cole Jr 36 Head PA NY NY wagon manuf'er
Dellia Cole 32 wife NY NY NY keeping house
Blanch Cole 11 dau PA PA NY
Fred Cole 7 son PA PA NY
William Cole 6 son PA PA NY
Charles Cole 4 son PA PA NY
Lewis B. Cole 72 father NY __ __ at home
Florence Brown 15 servant PA
54
Alanzo Crosby 47 Head PA NY NY surveyor
Williard Crosby 35 wife NY NY NY keeping house
Jennie Crosby 4 dau PA PA NY
Myrtle Crosby 2 dau PA PA NY
Lyman Crosby 6mo son PA PA NY (Dec)
55
Amos Veley 31 Head PA NJ NJ laborer
Ella S. Veley 30 wife PA NY NY keeping house
Edgar H. Veley 8 son PA PA PA
Harry M. Veley 6 son PA PA PA
Ella N. Burt 15 at home WI NY PA at home
56
O. H. Crosby 45 Head PA NY NY carpenter
P. M. Crosby 40 wife PA NY NY keeping house
57
Thos. J. Gilbert 32 Head PA PA PA house painter
Rose Gilbert 28 wife NY NY NY keeping house
Eloise G. Gilbert 2 dau PA PA NY
58
T. B. Brown 31 Head PA PA PA Civil Engineer
Mary A. Brown 29wife PA PA PA keeping house
Martha Brown 4 dau PA PA PA
Norman Brown 2 son PA PA PA
minnie wesley 14 servant PA PA PA
59
Arthur B. Mann 36 Head PA PA PA lawyer-land agent
Marbria J. Mann 37 wife NY NY NY keeping house
Nora Mann 12 dau NY PA NY
George King 24 cous PA PA PA clerk in land office
H. Fessenden 31 boarder PA laborer
Eulalia Fessenden 23 servant PA PA PA servant
Source Citation
Year: 1880; Census Place: Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania; Roll: 1165; Page: 438B; Enumeration District: 102
Source Information
Ancestry.com and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 1880 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2010. 1880 U.S. Census Index provided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints © Copyright 1999 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved. All use is subject to the limited use license and other terms and conditions applicable to this site.
Original data: Tenth Census of the United States, 1880. (NARA microfilm publication T9, 1,454 rolls). Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29. National Archives, Washington, D.C.
20190214HAv-
Charles Cole in the 1940 United States Federal Census
certificate of residence:
I hereby certify that I and the members of my household here present are not residents of HOLLYWOOD but live in COUDERSPORT...
signed: Chas Cole
date: April 13 1940
enum: Edith Cummings
Name: Charles Cole
Age: 63
birth year: abt 1877
Gender: Male
Race: White
Birthplace: Pennsylvania
Marital status: Married
Relation to Head of House: Head
where enumerated: 2232 Polk? ST
Hollywood, Florida
owned
value: $7,500
farm? no
Home in 1940: not Hollywood,
but Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania
Street: 408 Mill Street
Farm: No
Inferred Residence in 1935: Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania
Residence in 1935: Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania
Resident on farm in 1935: No
Household Members:
Name Age
Charles Cole 63 Head PA PA PA S (written over M)
Blanche Cole 71 sister PA PA PA S
Source Citation
Year: 1940; Census Place: Coudersport, Potter, Pennsylvania; Roll: m-t0627-03600; Enumeration District: 53-7
Source Information
Ancestry.com. 1940 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2012.
Original data: United States of America, Bureau of the Census. Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1940. T627, 4,643 rolls.
|
| Name |
Charles P. Cole [2, 3, 4, 11] |
Charles Cole Memorial Hospital
Posted by EMyRus77
Charles Cole was born in June of 1876 and grew up in the Coudersport area. He showed an early aptitude for sales and began a career selling pianos and organs for Smith Music Company in Olean, NY. His later association with John Patterson, then President of the National Cash Register Company, brought him in contact with Thomas Watson. When Watson set out to establish his own business, the Rochester Time and Recording Company, he sought Mr. Cole as a salesman. He enjoyed great success with the company and was encouraged to reinvest part of his salary in company stocks. This company became International Business Machines or IBM. By late 1920, Mr. Cole had retired and returned to his beloved Coudersport. Few in the community knew of his wealth and upon his death in 1961, the extent of his fortune became known. Mr. Cole left instructions that his estate was to fund a much-needed community hospital. Through the generosity of his widow, the former Edith Pinney, the Charles Cole Memorial Hospital was opened in September 1967. Mrs. Cole later was married to a Chicago surgeon, G. Howard Irwin, and both maintained philanthropic interest in the Hospital until their death in the 1990s. Many of the new buildings including the Irwin Rehabilitation Center and the Irwin Medical Arts Center have been funded by the charitable trusts they established to help meet the medical needs of the community far into the future.
Charles Cole Memorial Hospital
?
gilbertsonc1 originally shared this on 15 Feb 2009
Linked To Charles Cole ?
____________________
20181201HAv-
Sarah M Cole L2QD-HCZ
birth: 16 March 1908, New York City, New York
death: October 1983, Staten Island, Richmond, New York
father: Charles P. Cole L2QD-4RH
mother: Edith M Wood L2QD-W9Q
|
| Occupation |
salesman for the Rochester Time and Recording Company, later IBM |
| Person ID |
I7621 |
WETZEL-SPRING |