Carasso's Estate

Philadelphia County Orphans' Court

Carasso's Estate

22 Pa. D. & C. 41, 1934 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 386

CourtPennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County

DecidedNovember 23, 1934

Docketno. 2020 of 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Pa. D. & C. 41 (Carasso'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

Carasso's Estate, 22 Pa. D. & C. 41, 1934 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 386 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Sinklek, J.,

The first exception involves a finding of fact by the auditing judge that, barring the bank account, no estate existed. As Penrose, J., has said in Chapman’s Estate, 18 Dist. R. 354, the finding of an auditing judge upon a question of fact, in the absence of clear error, is conclusive. Consideration of the record and of the briefs of argument filed by counsel convinces us that there is no error of the auditing judge in his determination of fact.

The second exception raises the question whether the auditing judge erred in refusing to consider the claim of the exceptant because there was no fund for distribution.

The authorities cited by the auditing judge sustain his ruling.

All 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

Sinklek, J.,

The first exception involves a finding of fact by the auditing judge that, barring the bank account, no estate existed. As Penrose, J., has said in Chapman’s Estate, 18 Dist. R. 354, the finding of an auditing judge upon a question of fact, in the absence of clear error, is conclusive. Consideration of the record and of the briefs of argument filed by counsel convinces us that there is no error of the auditing judge in his determination of fact.

The second exception raises the question whether the auditing judge erred in refusing to consider the claim of the exceptant because there was no fund for distribution.

The authorities cited by the auditing judge sustain his ruling.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Pa. D. & C. 41, 1934 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carassos-estate-paorphctphilad-1934.