Baur v. Abbott

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Baur v. Abbott

10 A.2d 5, 337 Pa. 33, 1939 Pa. LEXIS 558

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 8, 1939

DocketAppeals, 163 and 164

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 10 A.2d 5 (Baur v. Abbott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baur v. Abbott, 10 A.2d 5, 337 Pa. 33, 1939 Pa. LEXIS 558 (Pa. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This proceeding began August 27, 1927, by bill by co-partners praying for the appointment of a receiver, for dissolution of, and partition of the real estate of, Baur Floral Company, a partnership, engaged in business in Erie, Pa. The proceedings have resulted in a voluminous record. The final decree assigned for error *34 is dated March 13, 1939, directing distribution by the receiver and dismissing exceptions.

The principal contention, made on behalf of appellants, was that the evidence did not support the findings approved by the court in banc. There is evidence to support the findings, which, therefore, must be accepted as final. There is no merit in appellants’ contention that Henry Baur’s testimony relating to his conversation with Abbott, since deceased, was improperly excluded: Bowman’s Estate, 301 Pa. 337, 343, 152 A. 38. Having reached this conclusion, it is unnecessary to deal with the questions of procedure or the motions to dismiss the appeals.

Decree affirmed at appellants’ costs, ,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

This proceeding began August 27, 1927, by bill by co-partners praying for the appointment of a receiver, for dissolution of, and partition of the real estate of, Baur Floral Company, a partnership, engaged in business in Erie, Pa. The proceedings have resulted in a voluminous record. The final decree assigned for error *34 is dated March 13, 1939, directing distribution by the receiver and dismissing exceptions.

The principal contention, made on behalf of appellants, was that the evidence did not support the findings approved by the court in banc. There is evidence to support the findings, which, therefore, must be accepted as final. There is no merit in appellants’ contention that Henry Baur’s testimony relating to his conversation with Abbott, since deceased, was improperly excluded: Bowman’s Estate, 301 Pa. 337, 343, 152 A. 38. Having reached this conclusion, it is unnecessary to deal with the questions of procedure or the motions to dismiss the appeals.

Decree affirmed at appellants’ costs, ,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.2d 5, 337 Pa. 33, 1939 Pa. LEXIS 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baur-v-abbott-pa-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack