Finn v. Mellon
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 33, Oct. T., 1919, by plaintiff, from judgment of Superior Court, April T., 1918, No. 72, affirming order of C. P. Beaver Co., March T., 1916, No. 336, dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report in case of Henry Finn v. W. J. Mellon and Smith D. Hicks, Administrators of Hiram Hicks, defendants, and Emma Hicks, Smith D. Hicks, James H. Hicks, Geo.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 33, Oct. T., 1919, by plaintiff, from judgment of Superior Court, April T., 1918, No. 72, affirming order of C. P. Beaver Co., March T., 1916, No. 336, dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report in case of Henry Finn v. W. J. Mellon and Smith D. Hicks, Administrators of Hiram Hicks, defendants, and Emma Hicks, Smith D. Hicks, James H. Hicks, Geo. Hicks, Isabella Hicks, Margaret Schier and Charles Bradshaw, Guardian ad litem of Leroy Potter and Emma Potter, terre-tenants. Appeal from Superior Court. See Finn v. Mellon, 71 Pa. Superior Ct. 7. The Superior Court affirmed the order of…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The single question involved in this appeal has met with a very full and satisfactory discussion in the opinion adopted by the learned Superior Court affirming the judgment of the court below. Our views accord with those therein expressed. The assignments of error are accordingly overruled, and the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Keystone State Building & Loan Ass'n v. ButterfieldSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Sugden v. RothschildSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931