Sprenkle's Appeal

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Sprenkle's Appeal

15 A. 773, 1 Monag. 402, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 736

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 1, 1888·No. Appeal, No. 56·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

A careful examination of this case satisfies us that there is no error in the decree of the court helow, and that the exceptions to it cannot be sustained. The gift was well established, and if the donor intended to substitute it for the legacy to the appellee, such intention was not manifested by any act or word which he either did or said. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is founded neither upon fact nor sound presumption, whilst the opinion of the court is brief, lucid and legal, and ought to have been satisfactory to both parties.

Decree affirmed at the costs of appellants.

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

Per Curiam,

A careful examination of this case satisfies us that there is no error in the decree of the court helow, and that the exceptions to it cannot be sustained. The gift was well established, and if the donor intended to substitute it for the legacy to the appellee, such intention was not manifested by any act or word which he either did or said. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is founded neither upon fact nor sound presumption, whilst the opinion of the court is brief, lucid and legal, and ought to have been satisfactory to both parties.

Decree affirmed at the costs of appellants.

Sprenkle's Appeal, 15 A. 773, 1 Monag. 402, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 736 (Pa. 1888).

Pincite

15 A. 773 (Sprenkle's Appeal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related