Fereday v. Mankedick

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Fereday v. Mankedick

34 A. 46, 172 Pa. 535, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 807

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 6, 1896·No. Appeal, No. 208·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

A careful examination of the record, including the able and exhaustive report of the learned master, has convinced us that his findings of fact as well as his conclusions of law are substantially correct, and fully justified the decree from which this appeal was taken. There is nothing in either of the specifications of error that requires special'notice. Neither of them is sustained.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by the defendant.

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

Per Curiam,

A careful examination of the record, including the able and exhaustive report of the learned master, has convinced us that his findings of fact as well as his conclusions of law are substantially correct, and fully justified the decree from which this appeal was taken. There is nothing in either of the specifications of error that requires special'notice. Neither of them is sustained.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by the defendant.

Fereday v. Mankedick, 34 A. 46, 172 Pa. 535, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 807 (Pa. 1896).

Pincite

34 A. 46 (Fereday v. Mankedick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related