Lechler's Appeal
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
July Term, 1887, No. 100, E. D., Appeal from a decree from the Orphans’ Court of Lancaster County dismissing the exceptions to the report of an auditor to adjust a guardian’s account, whereby the guardian was surcharged with the loss resulting from an investment made by him of his ward’s money upon a second mortgage. The questions presented are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Pre-eminent knowledge or uncommon foresight are not required of a guardian.
Read the full summary
July Term, 1887, No. 100, E. D., Appeal from a decree from the Orphans’ Court of Lancaster County dismissing the exceptions to the report of an auditor to adjust a guardian’s account, whereby the guardian was surcharged with the loss resulting from an investment made by him of his ward’s money upon a second mortgage. The questions presented are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Pre-eminent knowledge or uncommon foresight are not required of a guardian. Common skill, common prudence, and common caution are all that courts have required or ought to require. Konigmacher v. Kimmel, 1 Penr. & W.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Green:
The auditor in this case, upon an exceedingly calm and conservative review of the testimony and law involved, found that the appellant, in making the investment in question, did not exercise the ordinary prudence and care of a business man and was, therefore, liable to account for the money invested. The report of the auditor was confirmed by the court below both in its conclusions of fact and law. We have examined the testimony with much care and are constrained to say that the auditor was fully justified in his conclusions of fact and in the application of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Jack's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
3Cited by3 opinions
- Pearson v. HaydelMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Newcomer EstateYork County Orphans' Court · 1956
- Peck's EstatePennsylvania Orphans' Court, Berks County · 1941