Kleckner v. Kleckner
61 A. 1019, 212 Pa. 515, 1905 Pa. LEXIS 651
Opinion
The bill seeks the rescission and cancellation of a deed made by the complainant to her son, on the ground that it was obtained by fraud. The question of fraud is the only one in the case. The evidence was very full on the whole transaction, the judge had it all before him and he found against the complainant. It would serve no useful purpose to review the evidence in detail. It is sufficient to say that we are satisfied witji the learned judge’s view of the facts and we affirm the decree on his conclusions of law.
Decree affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Kleckner v. Kleckner, 61 A. 1019, 212 Pa. 515, 1905 Pa. LEXIS 651 (Pa. 1905).
61 A. 1019 (Kleckner v. Kleckner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Rutter v. Rutter
141 A. 146 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Beyl v. Berger
2 Pa. D. & C. 449 (Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, 1922)
Vaughn v. Vaughn
66 A. 745 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1907)