Bowers v. Bennethum

19 A. 624, 133 Pa. 306, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 902
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Berks County·Decided March 17, 1890·No. No. 384·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The first assignment does not conform to the Rules of Court, and will not be considered. The two remaining assignments are general, and allege error in the decree. A portion only of the testimony is printed, but it was conceded that there was an adequate consideration given for the deed which the appellants seek to have delivered up and canceled. This leaves open only the question of fraud, and this has been found against the appellants by the master, which finding has been approved by the court below. This finding was abundantly justified by the evidence. The plaintiffs had no case upon the merits.

The decree is affirmed and the appeal dismissed, at the costs of the appellants.

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

Bowers v. Bennethum, 19 A. 624, 133 Pa. 306, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 902 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1890).

19 A. 624 (Bowers v. Bennethum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wagner v. Estate of Rummel
571 A.2d 1055 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1990)
In Re Estate of Mihm
497 A.2d 612 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1985)
Steuart v. McChesney
424 A.2d 1375 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)
Snow v. Corsica Construction Co., Inc.
329 A.2d 887 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
Welsh Et Ux. v. Ford Et Ux.
127 A. 431 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1924)