
    Susannah Pettyjohn's Executor v. Levin Pettyjohn.
    A widow’s interest in the one-third of the residue of her husband’s personal estate, who dies intestate, is a vested interest, and her right attaches immediately on his death. But in an action to recover it, it is not sufficient to establish her marriage, to prove that they were married by a person- generally reputed to be a Methodist preacher. Better and stronger evidence than general reputation is necessary. A printed copy, without authentication, of the minutes of the Conference, on which his name appeared as a minister, is not admissible.for this purpose; but further proof that he was received as such a minister, sent by the Methodist Conference on the circuit, and that he served upon it two years, administering the sacrament and other ordinances of the church, and then went to another circuit, in the absence of rebutting evidence, was held sufficient to establish his ministerial character and office.
    This was an action of debt by the executor of Susannah Pettyjohn against Levin Pettyjohn, on his bond as the administrator of Ebenezer Pettyjohn, deceased, for one-third of the residue of his personal estate. Susannah Pettyjohn was the wife of Ebenezer Pettyjohn, and survived him only a few days. The evidence of witnesses who were present at the marriage was, that they were married, about a year before Ebenezer Pettyjohn’s death, by Jonas Pusey, who passed for a Methodist preacher. Other witnesses testified that they had known him as a regularly ordained minister of the Gospel, and that he was received as such by the members of the Methodist church at Georgetown, to which he was sent by the Philadelphia Conference, and where he administered the sacrament and other ordinances of the church for two years, and then removed to another circuit. A printed copy, in pamphlet form, of the minutes of the Conference, was then offered in evidence, but without any authentication or proof of its having been issued by authority of the body, to prove his appointment and ministerial functions, and was objected to.
    
      The Court, the Chief Justice dissenting, rejected the evidence.
    
      C. S. Layton, for the defendant:
    The evidence in the case is, that the widow, Mrs. Pettyjohn—provided the Court and jury were satisfied that they were lawfully married by a person having competent authority to solemnize it—died within a week after the death-of her husband, and the question which he wished to present was, whether she had, under these circumstances, such an interest in the one-third of the residue of his personal estate as would sustain the action under the provisions of our statute, which ascertained and contemplated no residue until the expiration of a year after the death of the decedent?
    
      W. Saulsbury, for the plaintiff, replied; and
   The Court,

Harrington, Ch. J.,

charged the jury: That it was a vested interest, and the right of Mrs. Pettyjohn, the widow of the intestate, attached as such, immediately on the death of the husband, Ebenezer Pettyjohn, provided she survived him. On the other point, as to the ministerial character, functions, and authority of the preacher who married them, it was not sufficient, in the present action, to prove it by general reputation, as that he was generally reputed in the neighborhood to be a Methodist preacher; but it must be proved by better and stronger evidence, such as had been adduced in this case, which the Court deemed sufficient, in the absence of any rebutting testimony, to establish his character and functions as a minister in that church,, and to administer its ordinances, and, of course, to perform the marriage ceremony under our act of Assembly.

Verdict for the plaintiff.  