Lewis v. Linden Steel Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 108, Oct. T., 1897, by Second National Bank of Pittsburg, from order of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., April T., 1895, No. 272, sustaining exceptions tó auditor’s report. Exceptions to report of auditor.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 108, Oct. T., 1897, by Second National Bank of Pittsburg, from order of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., April T., 1895, No. 272, sustaining exceptions tó auditor’s report. Exceptions to report of auditor. The auditor, Thomas Herriott, Esq., reported the facts to be as follows There is no conflict of testimony in this case, and the testimony taken by the auditor shows that on February 11, 1895, Henry Warner was appointed receiver of the Linden Steel Company, which operated a manufacturing plant in the city of Pittsburg, and was engaged in the manufacture of various kinds of steel. On…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This appeal is from the final decree dismissing exceptions to the learned auditor’s second report and ordering distribution in accordance with the ¿ccompanying schedule. A careful con- , sideration of the questions presented by the record has satisfied us that there is no substantial error in the decree. For reasons given in the opinion of the court, filed March 24, 1897, the decree should not be disturbed.
Decreé affirmed and appeal dismissed at appellant’s costs.
2Cited by7 opinions
- Clifford v. West Hartford Creamery Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1931
- Ball v. Improved Property Holding Co. of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
- Wigton v. Climax Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Cox v. SnowIdaho Supreme Court · 1929
- Campbell v. Harrisburg Manufacturing & Boiler Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1933
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.