McCarty's Appeal
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
July Term, 1887, No. 193, E. D., Appeal from a decree of the Common Pleas of Fayette County, overruling exceptions to the report of an auditor upon a petition to strike off judgments entered upon judgment notes, and confirming the report, December Term, 1886, Nos. 45-48. The petitioner, against whom judgment had been entered by the executor of her deceased father upon four judgment notes, claimed that it had been the decedent’s intention that she should never be forced to…
Read the full summary
July Term, 1887, No. 193, E. D., Appeal from a decree of the Common Pleas of Fayette County, overruling exceptions to the report of an auditor upon a petition to strike off judgments entered upon judgment notes, and confirming the report, December Term, 1886, Nos. 45-48. The petitioner, against whom judgment had been entered by the executor of her deceased father upon four judgment notes, claimed that it had been the decedent’s intention that she should never be forced to pay the notes. It appeared that her father made a will in 1880, whereby he bequeathed to the petitioner a certain number…
1Per curiam
The assignments of error in this case are all to findings of fact by the auditor. The finding’s referred to come up to us with the weight of the verdict of a jury. This is especially so where, as here, the auditor’s findings have been approved by the court. It ought to be an extreme case — one of clear error— where we .are asked to go over the evidence to correct matters of fact found by an auditor and approved by the court below. No attempt is made in the paper book of appellant to point out any such clear error. In fact, almost the entire argument refers to the law of the case.
Decree…
2Cited by2 opinions
- H. T. Cottam & Co. v. MoisesLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1921
- Milam-Morgan Co. v. Atlantic Fruit Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1915