Kutz's Estate
103 A. 293, 259 Pa. 548, 1918 Pa. LEXIS 448
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 7, 1918·No. Appeal, No. 139·Published·Cited by 8 cases
Opinion
The majority of the court are of opinion that this decree should be affirmed on the opinion of the learned court below dismissing the exceptions to the sale and to the petition for specific performance of contract. Even if there-were any merit in-the- appeal it could not be sustained for the disregard of the rule relating to assigns ments of error. Neither of the two is in proper form.
Decree affirmed at appellants’ costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Kutz's Estate, 103 A. 293, 259 Pa. 548, 1918 Pa. LEXIS 448 (Pa. 1918).
103 A. 293 (Kutz's Estate) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Soltis v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
M.D. Pennsylvania, 2025
Ricci v. Saia
13 Pa. D. & C.3d 361 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1980)
Helmer Estate
10 Pa. D. & C.2d 541 (Philadelphia County Orphans' Court, 1957)
Freeman v. Lawton
46 A.2d 205 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1946)
Heights Land Co. v. Swengel's Estate
179 A. 431 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1935)
Ginsburg v. Collins
84 Pa. Super. 221 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1924)
Revloc Supply Co. v. Troxell
126 A. 774 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1924)
Girard Mammoth Coal Co. v. Raven Run Coal Co.
119 A. 495 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)