Zug v. Searight
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 129, Jan. T., 1892, by creditor, Jos. A. Stuart, from decree of C. P. Cumberland Co., dismissing appellant’s exceptions to auditor’s report.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 129, Jan. T., 1892, by creditor, Jos. A. Stuart, from decree of C. P. Cumberland Co., dismissing appellant’s exceptions to auditor’s report. C. P. Humrich was appointed auditor “to make distribution, after passing upon the matters in controversy,” of $800, proceeds of sheriff’s sale of defendant’s property paid into court, said $800 being the amount of attorney’s commissions included in a judgment entered on sci. fa. sur mortgage for $24,696. The agreement as to division of attorney’s commissions between counsel for plaintiff and defendant, mentioned below, was made after entry of…
1Opinion of the Court
Per. Curiam,
The only question in this case has been so intelligently discussed by the learned judge who heard it below in his opinion on the exceptions to the auditor’s report, that we affirm the decree for the reasons there given by him.
The decree is affirmed and the appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.
2Cited by5 opinions
- In re TorchiaDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1911
- Sherrard's Executors v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Bucks County Bank & Trust Co. v. Frey, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County1965
- Federal Land Bank v. Heiser, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County1985
- Scavo v. High Mount Lodge & Cottages, Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Monroe County1970