Brant's Estate

Philadelphia County Orphans' Court

Brant's Estate

21 Pa. D. & C. 605, 1934 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 175

CourtPennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County

DecidedOctober 26, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 21 Pa. D. & C. 605 (Brant's Estate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brant's Estate, 21 Pa. D. & C. 605, 1934 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 175 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Sinkler, J.,

Of the many requests for surcharge, the auditing judge refused all save one. He most reluctantly, as stated in the notes of testimony, surcharged the accountant with an item of credit — a fee paid a physician for professional services rendered the former minor. The accountant has filed an exception to the surcharge, while the former minor has filed exceptions by reason of the refusal to surcharge respecting certain other items.

Consideration of the briefs filed in behalf of both exceptants, as well as of the record in the case, leads to the conclusion that the auditing judge has not erred in his findings of facts and has exercised sound discretion in all matters which require the exercise of judicial discretion.

The exceptions are dismissed, and the adjudication is confirmed absolutely.

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

Sinkler, J.,

Of the many requests for surcharge, the auditing judge refused all save one. He most reluctantly, as stated in the notes of testimony, surcharged the accountant with an item of credit — a fee paid a physician for professional services rendered the former minor. The accountant has filed an exception to the surcharge, while the former minor has filed exceptions by reason of the refusal to surcharge respecting certain other items.

Consideration of the briefs filed in behalf of both exceptants, as well as of the record in the case, leads to the conclusion that the auditing judge has not erred in his findings of facts and has exercised sound discretion in all matters which require the exercise of judicial discretion.

The exceptions are dismissed, and the adjudication is confirmed absolutely.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Pa. D. & C. 605, 1934 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brants-estate-paorphctphilad-1934.