Sprenkle's Appeal
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 56, July T. 1888, by Geo. W. Sprenlde et al., residuary legatees of David Sprenlde deceased, to review a decree of O. O. York Co., dismissing exceptions to an auditor’s report, at June T. 1887. Tbe following facts appeared from the report of the auditor, J. B. Strawbridge, Esq.: David Sprenlde died, testate, March 12, 1886, and letters of administration c. t. a. were granted to his son George W. Sprenkle.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 56, July T. 1888, by Geo. W. Sprenlde et al., residuary legatees of David Sprenlde deceased, to review a decree of O. O. York Co., dismissing exceptions to an auditor’s report, at June T. 1887. Tbe following facts appeared from the report of the auditor, J. B. Strawbridge, Esq.: David Sprenlde died, testate, March 12, 1886, and letters of administration c. t. a. were granted to his son George W. Sprenkle. The will of the decedent, dated Sept. 24, 1885, contained, inter alia, the following clause: “ Secondly. I give, devise and bequeath unto my housekeeper, Lydia Landis, the sum of…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
A careful examination of this case satisfies us that there is no error in the decree of the court helow, and that the exceptions to it cannot be sustained. The gift was well established, and if the donor intended to substitute it for the legacy to the appellee, such intention was not manifested by any act or word which he either did or said. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is founded neither upon fact nor sound presumption, whilst the opinion of the court is brief, lucid and legal, and ought to have been satisfactory to both parties.
Decree affirmed at the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Youngerman v. YoungermanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- Estate of HardemanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- In re Estate of Garratt, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco1892