Legal Opinion

Hoog v. Diehl

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 17, 1938No. Appeal, 169PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Rhodes, J.,

This appeal is the result of the dismissal of defendant’s exceptions to the report of a master in partition proceedings, and the approval of the master’s report by the court below. Emil W. Diehl and Elizabeth Diehl, his Avife, became the owners in fee as tenants by en-tireties of premises at 131 E. Westmoreland Street, Philadelphia, Pa., by deed dated January 25, 1912. Elizabeth Diehl died on August 23, 1925. Emil W. Diehl intermarried with one Sarah Jane ShaAV. On December 4, 1935, Emil W. Diehl died intestate seized of said premises, and leaving to survive him his wife,…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Novy v. NovySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  2. Lipschutz v. LipschutzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  3. Kline v. Jacobs & WifeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
  4. Lincoln v. AfricaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
  5. Lancaster v. FlowersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Bednar v. BednarSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  2. Mertz v. MertzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  3. Beck v. BeiterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  4. Sciotto v. SciottoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  5. Citizens Deposit & Trust Co. v. Citizens Deposit & Trust Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API