Fisher v. Strickler

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Fisher v. Strickler

10 Pa. 348, 1849 Pa. LEXIS 224

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 21, 1849·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Rosees, J.

After a careful examination of the authorities cited, we concur in the opinion that this is a covenant to stand seised to uses. The judgment is therefore affirmed, for the reasons given by Judge Hayes. We perceive nothing in the contract, as contended, in conflict with the law or policy of this state, either as it affects the collateral inheritance tax, or the dower of any future wife.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Rosees, J.

After a careful examination of the authorities cited, we concur in the opinion that this is a covenant to stand seised to uses. The judgment is therefore affirmed, for the reasons given by Judge Hayes. We perceive nothing in the contract, as contended, in conflict with the law or policy of this state, either as it affects the collateral inheritance tax, or the dower of any future wife.

Judgment affirmed.

Fisher v. Strickler, 10 Pa. 348, 1849 Pa. LEXIS 224 (Pa. 1849).

Pincite

10 Pa. 348 (Fisher v. Strickler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related