Kelly's Appeal

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Kelly's Appeal

12 A. 256, 7 Sadler 615, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 842

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Kelly's Appeal. Read the opinion of the Court — 1 Sadler 280 →

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 23, 1888·No. No. 64·Published

Opinion

Peli Cujeuam:

The appellant has failed to convince us that the decree of the . court below was erroneous. The bonds upon which he claimed a dividend were never delivered to him, nor was he at any time • entitled to demand their delivery. This appears so clearly from "the report of the learned auditor that we may well be excused from adding anything to what he has said.

Decree 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

Peli Cujeuam:

The appellant has failed to convince us that the decree of the . court below was erroneous. The bonds upon which he claimed a dividend were never delivered to him, nor was he at any time • entitled to demand their delivery. This appears so clearly from "the report of the learned auditor that we may well be excused from adding anything to what he has said.

Decree affirmed and the appeal dismissed, at the costs of the appellant.

Kelly's Appeal, 12 A. 256, 7 Sadler 615, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 842 (Pa. 1888).

Pincite

12 A. 256 (Kelly's Appeal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.