Estate of Lazarus

Luzerne County Orphans' Court

Estate of Lazarus

21 A. 792, 142 Pa. 104, 29 W.N.C. 372, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 714

CourtPennsylvania Orphans' Court, Luzerne County

DecidedApril 27, 1891

DocketNo. 329

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 21 A. 792 (Estate of Lazarus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Orphans' Court, Luzerne County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estate of Lazarus, 21 A. 792, 142 Pa. 104, 29 W.N.C. 372, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 714 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The thirteen assignments of error all point in one direction. In different forms they present the question whether there was sufficient evidence to take the note in controversy out of the statute. While the testimony was conflicting, there was enough, perhaps, to sustain either view of the case, and it became the [108]*108duty of the auditor and the court below to weigh it, and decide as to which side the scale inclined. The master held there was a sufficient acknowledgment of the debt, and in this he was sustained by the court below. The case is exceedingly close upon the facts, and the writer is bjr no means sure that he would have reached the auditor’s conclusion had he been in his place. But it by no means follows that, because we think the auditor might have found the other way, we would be justified in reversing his finding, sustained, as it is, by the opinion of the learned judge of the Orphans’ Court. They are both in a better position to consider and decide questions of fact than we are, and we would not reverse merely because we would have sustained the finding had it been the other way. We do not feel safe in saying that error has been committed in this case.

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

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

Per Curiam:

The thirteen assignments of error all point in one direction. In different forms they present the question whether there was sufficient evidence to take the note in controversy out of the statute. While the testimony was conflicting, there was enough, perhaps, to sustain either view of the case, and it became the [108]*108duty of the auditor and the court below to weigh it, and decide as to which side the scale inclined. The master held there was a sufficient acknowledgment of the debt, and in this he was sustained by the court below. The case is exceedingly close upon the facts, and the writer is bjr no means sure that he would have reached the auditor’s conclusion had he been in his place. But it by no means follows that, because we think the auditor might have found the other way, we would be justified in reversing his finding, sustained, as it is, by the opinion of the learned judge of the Orphans’ Court. They are both in a better position to consider and decide questions of fact than we are, and we would not reverse merely because we would have sustained the finding had it been the other way. We do not feel safe in saying that error has been committed in this case.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A. 792, 142 Pa. 104, 29 W.N.C. 372, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-lazarus-paorphctluzern-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack