Crotzer v. Bittenbender
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 287, Jan. T., 1901, by-plaintiff, from order of C. P. Luzerne County, March T., 1894, No. 230, dismissing exceptions to report of referee in case of Frank P. Crotzer v. Matilda L. Bittenbender, widow and administratrix of F. T. Bittenbender, deceased, L. K. Derby, guardian of Theodore, Joseph L., Fred E. and Rhoda Bittenbender, heirs and legal representatives of F. T. Bittenbender, deceased, P. W. Burns, D. W. Kingsbury and William Ritter.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 287, Jan. T., 1901, by-plaintiff, from order of C. P. Luzerne County, March T., 1894, No. 230, dismissing exceptions to report of referee in case of Frank P. Crotzer v. Matilda L. Bittenbender, widow and administratrix of F. T. Bittenbender, deceased, L. K. Derby, guardian of Theodore, Joseph L., Fred E. and Rhoda Bittenbender, heirs and legal representatives of F. T. Bittenbender, deceased, P. W. Burns, D. W. Kingsbury and William Ritter. Ejectment for land in the borough of Nanticoke. The case was referred to F. W. Wheaton, Esq., as referee. From the referee’s report it appeared…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The report of the learned referee and the dismissal by the court of the exceptions filed to it resulted in a judgment for the defendants. An examination of the report, and due consideration of the conclusion arrived at by the referee, convinced us that no error was committed in entering the judgment complained of by the appellant.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- English v. RossDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1905
- Lohrer v. RussellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- O'Connor v. DeckerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906