Appeal, No. 69, July T., 1895, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. Lancaster Co., May T., 1895, No. 39, for plaintiff on case stated. Held: that the nephew took a fee simple estate in the land. “ This case, which is the latest utterance of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, on this question, was affirmed by the Supreme Court for the reason given by the learned judge of the common pleas (Weand, J.), of Montgomery county, who held that, ‘whether intentional, or otherwise,…
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1895-05-30
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently September 1943
19 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1The question presented in this case was well considered and rightly disposed of by the court below. It is unnecessary to add anything to what has been said by the learned president of the common pleas in his able and exhaustive opinion sent up with the record. On that opinion we affirm the judgment.