Huston ex rel. Perot v. Clark

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Huston ex rel. Perot v. Clark

34 A. 56, 173 Pa. 361, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 708

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Huston ex rel. Perot v. Clark. Read the opinion of the Court — 162 Pa. 435 →

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 27, 1896·No. Appeal, No. 483·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam,

It is unnecessary to cite authorities to show that the only question presented in this case was concluded by the final decree of this court in Clark’s Appeal, 162 Pa. 435. The question of costs, including of course the master’s fee now complained of, was directly involved in that case and must now be regarded as rem adjudicatam.

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

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

Per Curiam,

It is unnecessary to cite authorities to show that the only question presented in this case was concluded by the final decree of this court in Clark’s Appeal, 162 Pa. 435. The question of costs, including of course the master’s fee now complained of, was directly involved in that case and must now be regarded as rem adjudicatam.

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

Huston ex rel. Perot v. Clark, 34 A. 56, 173 Pa. 361, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 708 (Pa. 1896).

Pincite

34 A. 56 (Huston ex rel. Perot v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related