Neal v. Black
35 A. 561, 177 Pa. 83, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 953
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 5, 1896·No. Appeal, No. 243·Published·Cited by 10 cases
Opinion
We find no error in this record that would justify either a reversal or modification of the decree. The learned judge’s [112]*112findings of fact and conclusions of law are substantially correct, and fully warranted tbe decree dismissing the bill at plaintiff’s costs. There appears to be nothing in either of the specifications of error that requires discussion.
The decree is affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by the appellant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Neal v. Black, 35 A. 561, 177 Pa. 83, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 953 (Pa. 1896).
35 A. 561 (Neal v. Black) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Palermo Estate
34 Pa. D. & C.2d 581 (Philadelphia County Orphans' Court, 1963)
May v. Commissioner
8 T.C. 1099 (U.S. Tax Court, 1947)
Spring v. Hawkes
41 A.2d 533 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1945)
Bowers' Trust Estate
29 A.2d 519 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1942)
Rehr v. Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co.
37 Pa. D. & C. 324 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1940)
Moore v. Gregory
131 S.E. 692 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1925)
King v. York Trust Co.
122 A. 227 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)
Willard v. Integrity Trust Co.
116 A. 513 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
Thompson v. Hebel
4 Teiss. 289 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1907)
Estate of Coleman
44 A. 1085 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1899)