Appeal of Wolf
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
January Term, 1888, No. 365, E. D., Ap: peal from a decree of the Common Pleas of Lycoming County in the matter of adoption of a minor child, November Term, 1878, No. 353. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court below, by Cummin, P. J., which was as follows: On the application of Aaron Wolf, as administrator and attorney in fact of the heirs of Samuel Sankey, now deceased, a rule was granted to show cause why the decree of adoption herein should not be set…
Read the full summary
January Term, 1888, No. 365, E. D., Ap: peal from a decree of the Common Pleas of Lycoming County in the matter of adoption of a minor child, November Term, 1878, No. 353. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court below, by Cummin, P. J., which was as follows: On the application of Aaron Wolf, as administrator and attorney in fact of the heirs of Samuel Sankey, now deceased, a rule was granted to show cause why the decree of adoption herein should not be set aside. In October, 1878, Caroline Sankey was a minor child, aged about nine years, living in Lycoming county. Her father…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam :
The decree in this case is affirmed, on the opinion of the learned judge of the court below; and it is ordered that the appellant pay‘the' costs of this -appeal.
2Cited by31 opinions
- Blythe v. AyresCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Van Matre v. SankeyIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
- Jones v. GuyTexas Supreme Court · 1940
- Cubley v. BarbeeTexas Supreme Court · 1934
- In Re Adoption of Duren v. HicksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1947
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.