Moore's Estate
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
2. Courts are not disposed to look with favor upon attempts to question a private settlement between partners which are not made promptly. Hence, if a partner, or one claiming through him, permits a settlement to stand for a long time unquestioned, his laches will bar an action to open it or set it aside, unless the delay is satisfactorily explained. Appeals, Nos. 12 and 13, March T., 1910, and No. 101, Jan. T., 1911, by Henry G. Moore et al., from decree of O. C. Phila.
Read the full summary
2. Courts are not disposed to look with favor upon attempts to question a private settlement between partners which are not made promptly. Hence, if a partner, or one claiming through him, permits a settlement to stand for a long time unquestioned, his laches will bar an action to open it or set it aside, unless the delay is satisfactorily explained. Appeals, Nos. 12 and 13, March T., 1910, and No. 101, Jan. T., 1911, by Henry G. Moore et al., from decree of O. C. Phila. Co., July T., 1898, No. 56, dismissing exceptions to adjudication in Estate of Andrew M. Moore, deceased. Exceptions to…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Potter,
Of the various claims made by appellants in this case, the first is that the accountants should be surcharged for failure to secure for the estate of Andrew M. Moore, deceased, the value of decedent’s share of the good will of the business of Moore & Sinnott, and the value of the trade-marks, leases, etc., owned by the firm, with the exception of the lease of the Gibsonton mills, which latter by its terms inured to the benefit of the surviving lessee. The determination of this question depends upon the proper construction of the partnership agreement which was…
2Cited by2 opinions
- O'Brien v. O'BrienCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1942
- Slater v. SlaterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950