Commonwealth v. Ruhl
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 334, Jan. T., 1900, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1900, No. 130, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Commonwealth to use of Johann Krebs, Christina Korb and Daniel Groh v. John Ruhl and Henry Kunzig, Appellant, and William Ruhl. Assumpsit on a bond of an administrator.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 334, Jan. T., 1900, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1900, No. 130, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Commonwealth to use of Johann Krebs, Christina Korb and Daniel Groh v. John Ruhl and Henry Kunzig, Appellant, and William Ruhl. Assumpsit on a bond of an administrator. The statement was in part as follows: The account of the said John Ruhl, administrator of Sophia Yung, deceased, having been called before the orphans’ court of Philadelphia county for audit, on July 2,1891, said account was…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Bbown,
The liability of this appellant was fixed by the decree of the orphans’ court of Philadelphia county, which we have this day affirmed, that John Ruhl, administrator of the estate of Sophia Yung, deceased, pay to the appellees the sums awarded them on the readjudication of his account. Ruhl and his sureties appealed from that decree, and we need not here repeat our reasons for affirming it, though they may be properly read in connection with our disposition of this appeal. The statement of appellees’ cause of action alleges that the orphans’ court of Philadelphia…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. GregorySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Commonwealth v. ToebeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Commonwealth v. KeanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902