Sprenkle's Appeal

15 A. 773, 1 Monag. 402, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 736
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 1, 1888
DocketAppeal, No. 56
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

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

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

Related

Estate of Hardeman
85 Pa. Super. 313 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1925)
Youngerman v. Youngerman
114 N.W. 7 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1907)
In re Estate of Garratt
3 Coffey 394 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 A. 773, 1 Monag. 402, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sprenkles-appeal-pa-1888.