McManus v. Laughlin

Decided July 21, 1898

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1898-07-21

Appeal, No. 110, Jan. T., 1897, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Pbila. Co., Dec. T., 1892, No. 949, dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report. Exceptions to auditor’s report. The case was referred to Charles Biddle, Esq., as auditor, who reported the facts to be as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT RELATING TO THE CLAIM BASED UPON THE SHARES OF PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD STOCK AND UPON THE PITTSBURG, TITUSVILLE & BUFFALO RAILROAD STOCK.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1898-07-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 1957

3 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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam,

¶1This appeal by Annie G. Summers is from the decree dismissing exceptions, confirming the auditor’s report and ordering distribution in accordance therewith.

¶2 *508It is unnecessary to refer in detail to the forty-seven exceptions to the auditor’s report, filed on behalf of appellant, or to the several questions involved in the assignments of error. To do so would consume much time to no good purpose. It is sufficient to say, as the result of a careful examination of the record, that the court below was clearly right in approving the learned auditor’s findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which its decree is based. We find nothing in the record that requires either a reversal or modification of the decree.

¶3Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at appellant’s costs.