Schnell's Case

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Schnell's Case

182 A. 771, 120 Pa. Super. 368, 1936 Pa. Super. LEXIS 10

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 28, 1935

DocketAppeal, 206

StatusPublished

This text of 182 A. 771 (Schnell's Case) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schnell's Case, 182 A. 771, 120 Pa. Super. 368, 1936 Pa. Super. LEXIS 10 (Pa. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We have carefully examined the record in this case and find nothing in it that would warrant a surcharge of the accountant. No good purpose would he served by a detailed discussion of the matter. The assignments of error filed by the appellant, Arthur H. Schnell, are overruled -and the decree of the court below is affirmed at his costs.

A brief was filed in this court on behalf of Miss Isabel Drummond,—purporting to have been done pursuant to our Rule 61. It has nothing to do with the questions involved in the appeal filed by Mr. Schnell and hence is not within Rule 61. She presented a claim in the court below for legal services rendered Mr. Schnell. The court disallowed it because “the agreement or relation which allegedly gave rise to this claim was made solely with Mr. Schnell without the guardian’s express or implied consent.” She took no appeal from that action. Mr. Schnell’s appeal from the dismissal of his exceptions did not operate as an appeal on her behalf. The costs incident to this brief are not chargeable against the appellant.

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

Per Curiam,

We have carefully examined the record in this case and find nothing in it that would warrant a surcharge of the accountant. No good purpose would he served by a detailed discussion of the matter. The assignments of error filed by the appellant, Arthur H. Schnell, are overruled -and the decree of the court below is affirmed at his costs.

A brief was filed in this court on behalf of Miss Isabel Drummond,—purporting to have been done pursuant to our Rule 61. It has nothing to do with the questions involved in the appeal filed by Mr. Schnell and hence is not within Rule 61. She presented a claim in the court below for legal services rendered Mr. Schnell. The court disallowed it because “the agreement or relation which allegedly gave rise to this claim was made solely with Mr. Schnell without the guardian’s express or implied consent.” She took no appeal from that action. Mr. Schnell’s appeal from the dismissal of his exceptions did not operate as an appeal on her behalf. The costs incident to this brief are not chargeable against the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A. 771, 120 Pa. Super. 368, 1936 Pa. Super. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schnells-case-pasuperct-1935.