Legal Opinion

Estate of Barber

Pennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County

Decided May 25, 1891No. 226PublishedCited by 3 opinions

No. 226 January Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 224 July Term 1879, O. C. On January 24, 1881, the account of Priscilla G. Cuthbert (late Barber) and Thornton B. Conrow, surviving executors of the will of Isaac Barber, deceased, filed on June 11, 1879, was called for audit before Ashman, J. At the hearing, it was made to appear that the testator died in April, 1860, leaving a widow, Priscilla G., a daughter Elizabeth, who died in childhood, and a son William T., about…

Read the full summary

No. 226 January Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 224 July Term 1879, O. C. On January 24, 1881, the account of Priscilla G. Cuthbert (late Barber) and Thornton B. Conrow, surviving executors of the will of Isaac Barber, deceased, filed on June 11, 1879, was called for audit before Ashman, J. At the hearing, it was made to appear that the testator died in April, 1860, leaving a widow, Priscilla G., a daughter Elizabeth, who died in childhood, and a son William T., about five years of age, and leaving a will dated February 10, 1860, duly admitted to probate, constituting his partner,…

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam :

An examination of the record in this case has failed to convince us that there is any error therein that requires a reversal or modification of the decree. Neither of the thirty-three specifications of error requires special notice. The controlling questions involved in them are sufficiently presented and properly disposed of in the opinion of the court below.

Decree affirmed, and appeal dismissed at the costs of appellants.

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. McKrackernSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1945
  2. State v. BennettSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1962
  3. Middlecoff v. Superior Court of San Joaquin Cty.California Supreme Court · 1906

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API