Legal Opinion

Estate of Kuhlman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 8, 1897PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Motion for reargument.

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

Tbe objections to tbe allowance of or credit for the notes, were sustained by the auditor, and his findings of facts and conclusions of law were approved by tbe court. Tbe only answer made by or for tbe accountant to tbis objection that tbe notes were barred by tbe statute of limitations was that be was not bound to plead that statute. Tbis was conceded by the auditor, but he was of tbe opinion that it was not a responsive or satisfactory answer to tbe objection. Tbis clearly appears in bis report. To this we may add that it was not claimed that tbe accountant had done anything to…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Bentley's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
  2. Beggs v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1949
  3. In Re Estate of CohenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  4. Beggs v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1949
  5. In re Estate of LivingstonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API