Mulholland's Estate

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Mulholland's Estate

34 A. 735, 175 Pa. 411, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1265

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 11, 1896

DocketAppeal No. 127

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 34 A. 735 (Mulholland's Estate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mulholland's Estate, 34 A. 735, 175 Pa. 411, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1265 (Pa. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This record discloses no error, of which appellant has any just reason to complain. On the contrary he appears to have been considerately and leniently dealt with by the learned auditor and the court below. His mismanagement of the trust — using his ward’s funds in his own business, and so mingling the same with his own that it was impossible to trace investments, etc. — ■ was such as to require the surcharges of interest, etc., and would also have justified the rejection of his entire claim for commissions ; but, as to that, “ the appellee does not complain,” and hence the question is not properly before us.

There is nothing in either of the specifications of error that requires special notice. The questions involved were sufficiently considered by the court below.

Decree affirmed on the opinion of the learned president of the 45th judicial district, who specially presided at the hearing, and appeal dismissed at appellant’s costs.

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

Per Curiam,

This record discloses no error, of which appellant has any just reason to complain. On the contrary he appears to have been considerately and leniently dealt with by the learned auditor and the court below. His mismanagement of the trust — using his ward’s funds in his own business, and so mingling the same with his own that it was impossible to trace investments, etc. — ■ was such as to require the surcharges of interest, etc., and would also have justified the rejection of his entire claim for commissions ; but, as to that, “ the appellee does not complain,” and hence the question is not properly before us.

There is nothing in either of the specifications of error that requires special notice. The questions involved were sufficiently considered by the court below.

Decree affirmed on the opinion of the learned president of the 45th judicial district, who specially presided at the hearing, and appeal dismissed at appellant’s costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A. 735, 175 Pa. 411, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mulhollands-estate-pa-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack