Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Cunningham Estate

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 12, 1959No. Appeals, 222, 223, and 228,Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

*15Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Bell :

Cunningham Estate and Harvey Estate are test eases, and since on several points they are inextricably intertwined, they will on those points be considered together. They involve the application and clarification of the Pennsylvania equitable doctrine or Rule of Apportionment as applied to stock distributions which were made by several corporations to testamentary trustees which own, respectively, (a) trustee-purchased, and (b) decedent-owned common stock.

More particularly there are two main questions involved: (1) Are any or all of these…

2Cases cited45 opinions

  1. Murray v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
  2. Earp's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1857
  3. Nirdlinger's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  4. Crawford EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  5. Waterhouse's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932

40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API