Hovey's Estate

48 A. 311, 198 Pa. 385, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 795
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 18, 1901·No. Appeals, Nos. 124, 145, 150, 156 and 157·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The exceptions to the conclusions arrived at by the auditing judge were, upon due consideration, dismissed, and the conclusions aforesaid were approved. The assignments of error are nothing more than a repetition of the exceptions dismissed. The argument based on the exceptions has not resulted in a conviction of error in the adjudication. The latter appears to have been carefully considered by the auditing judge and to be well sustained by principle and authority. The decree of the orphans’ court is sustained and the assignments are dismissed.

Decree affirmed and appeals dismissed at the costs of the appellants.

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

Hovey's Estate, 48 A. 311, 198 Pa. 385, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 795 (Pa. 1901).

48 A. 311 (Hovey's Estate) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. American Sugar Refining Co.
47 Pa. D. & C. 276 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1942)
International Fuel Service Corp. v. Stearns
155 A. 285 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1931)
Emerson-Brantingham Implement Co. v. Arrington
112 So. 428 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1927)
Jenson v. Toltec Ranch Co.
174 F. 86 (Eighth Circuit, 1909)
Dunlop v. Mercer
156 F. 545 (Eighth Circuit, 1907)
Thomas Manufacturing Co. v. Knapp
112 N.W. 989 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1907)
Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Piggott
55 S.E. 664 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1906)