Beale v. Kline

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Beale v. Kline

40 A. 1132, 186 Pa. 381, 1898 Pa. LEXIS 1011

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 30, 1898

DocketAppeal, No. 64

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A. 1132 (Beale v. Kline) 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

Beale v. Kline, 40 A. 1132, 186 Pa. 381, 1898 Pa. LEXIS 1011 (Pa. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

When this case was here last year, the tenth finding of the court below, “that‘accessions’ had been made to the fund from some source,” etc., was not sustained, because it was “not a finding of fact from the evidence,” but an unwarranted “ inference of the learned judge from Mrs. Eyer’s method of dealing with her securities,” etc.: Beale v. Kline, 183 Pa. 149, 154. The decree was accordingly reversed and the record remitted, with a procedendo, that the accounts might be restated in accordance with the opinion then filed.

Our examination of the record, as now presented, has satisfied us that the restated accounts substantially conform to the requirements of said opinion. There is nothing in either of the specifications of error that requires special notice. They are all overruled.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at appellants’ costs.

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

Pee Curiam,

When this case was here last year, the tenth finding of the court below, “that‘accessions’ had been made to the fund from some source,” etc., was not sustained, because it was “not a finding of fact from the evidence,” but an unwarranted “ inference of the learned judge from Mrs. Eyer’s method of dealing with her securities,” etc.: Beale v. Kline, 183 Pa. 149, 154. The decree was accordingly reversed and the record remitted, with a procedendo, that the accounts might be restated in accordance with the opinion then filed.

Our examination of the record, as now presented, has satisfied us that the restated accounts substantially conform to the requirements of said opinion. There is nothing in either of the specifications of error that requires special notice. They are all overruled.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at appellants’ costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A. 1132, 186 Pa. 381, 1898 Pa. LEXIS 1011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beale-v-kline-pa-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack