Estate of Cridland
This text of 19 A. 362 (Estate of Cridland) 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.
Opinion
There was no error in refusing to surcharge the accountant with the amount of principal alleged to have been lost by the investment in United States bonds at a premium, which were subsequently called in and paid off at par. For reasons given at length in the opinion of the learned auditing judge, Pen-rose, J., the Orphans’ Court was clearly right in dismissing the exceptions, and confirming his adjudication.
Decree affirmed, and appeal dismissed, at the cost of appellant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
19 A. 362, 132 Pa. 479, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-cridland-pa-1890.