Sneathen's Estate

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Sneathen's Estate

22 Pa. Super. 52

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 20, 1903

DocketNo. 2; Appeal, No. 79

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Pa. Super. 52 (Sneathen's Estate) 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

Sneathen's Estate, 22 Pa. Super. 52 (Pa. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,'

The facts in this case are, in most respects, similar to those in Mary A. Sneathen’s Estate, ante, p. 45, in which an opinion had just been filed. It was a joint appeal but upon motion, as in the former case, judgment of non pros, was entered as to all of the appellants, except Frank F. Sneathen.

The facts in regard to the sale of the property under proceedings in partition are practically the same as those recited in Mary A. Sneathen’s Estate, supra, except that in this case it was alleged, and the court has found, that there was a public announcement at the sale that all municipal liens would be paid out of the proceeds. We regard this fact as conclusive of the matter in controversy for the reasons stated by the auditing judge in his opinion in Mary A. Sneathen’s Estate, to which he refers.

The decree of the orphans’ court is affirmed and the appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellant.

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

Per Curiam,'

The facts in this case are, in most respects, similar to those in Mary A. Sneathen’s Estate, ante, p. 45, in which an opinion had just been filed. It was a joint appeal but upon motion, as in the former case, judgment of non pros, was entered as to all of the appellants, except Frank F. Sneathen.

The facts in regard to the sale of the property under proceedings in partition are practically the same as those recited in Mary A. Sneathen’s Estate, supra, except that in this case it was alleged, and the court has found, that there was a public announcement at the sale that all municipal liens would be paid out of the proceeds. We regard this fact as conclusive of the matter in controversy for the reasons stated by the auditing judge in his opinion in Mary A. Sneathen’s Estate, to which he refers.

The decree of the orphans’ court is affirmed and the appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Pa. Super. 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sneathens-estate-pasuperct-1903.