Appeal of L. Candee & Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 54, Jan. T., 1899, by Candee & Co., from decree of C. P. Blair Co., Oct. T., 1895, under writs of fi. fas. Nos. 51 and 52, sustaining exceptions to auditor’s report. Exceptions to auditor’s report.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 54, Jan. T., 1899, by Candee & Co., from decree of C. P. Blair Co., Oct. T., 1895, under writs of fi. fas. Nos. 51 and 52, sustaining exceptions to auditor’s report. Exceptions to auditor’s report. Tbe facts sufficiently appear from the opinion of Bell, P. J., as follows: On July 12, 1895, two judgments were entered against Fox & Curtis, to wit: No. 398, June term, 1895, for $4,500, in favor of Curtis, Jones & Co.; and No. 394, June term, 1895, for $5,000, in favor of S. M. Meredith, in trust for Candee & Co. On same day fi. fas. were issued on said judgments, but the fi. fa. on…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The controlling facts of .this case and the questions of law *655arising thereon are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court helow, filed January 3, 1899, and need not be recited here.
Our consideration of the record has disclosed no error therein that would justify us in sustaining either of the six specifications of error. The subjects of complaint in the first and second are that the court erred “in overruling” the findings of the auditor recited therein respectively. For reasons given by the learned judge, we think he was clearly right in refusing to sustain either of said…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Buckwalter Stove Co. v. EdmondsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Smith v. KeenerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Sauter v. GrelleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930