Legal Opinion

Mulholland's Estate

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 11, 1896No. Appeal No. 127PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal No. 127, July T., 1895, by Godfrey Fisher, from decree of O. C. Centre Co., dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report. Exceptions to auditor’s report.

Read the full summary

Appeal No. 127, July T., 1895, by Godfrey Fisher, from decree of O. C. Centre Co., dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report. Exceptions to auditor’s report. The auditor, H. C. Quigley, Esq., reported as follows : It appears from the record and oral evidence, first, that Godfrey Fisher was on the 29th of January, 1885, appointed guardian of the person and estate of Nancy Mulholland, and having first filed his bond, which was duly approved, proceeded immediately to assume the responsibility of his said trust. Second, that the estate of said ward which came into the hands of said guardian…

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

This record discloses no error, of which appellant has any just reason to complain. On the contrary he appears to have been considerately and leniently dealt with by the learned auditor and the court below. His mismanagement of the trust — using his ward’s funds in his own business, and so mingling the same with his own that it was impossible to trace investments, etc. — ■ was such as to require the surcharges of interest, etc., and would also have justified the rejection of his entire claim for commissions ; but, as to that, “ the appellee does not complain,” and hence the…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ambrose v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1916
  2. Commonwealth ex rel. Brochus v. Pechulis, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County1926
  3. Kashner's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900

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

Powered by the Exa API