Legal Opinion

Lincoln v. Wakefield

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 2, 1912No. Appeal, No. 146PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal, No. 146, Jan. T., 1912, by defendants, from decree.of C. P. Huntingdon Co., May T., 1908, No. 148, on bill in equity in case of J. G. Lincoln, Julia B. Glazier, Mary E. Glazier, Phoebe A. Glazier and Hattie F. Glazier, executrices of C. H. Glazier, deceased, and B. J. Mattern, assignee for the benefit of the creditors of Julia T. Glazier v. Harry G. Wakefield, Mary Catherine Wakefield, and Merle Stewart Wakefield, whose guardian, ad. litem, is George W. Wright; J.…

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 146, Jan. T., 1912, by defendants, from decree.of C. P. Huntingdon Co., May T., 1908, No. 148, on bill in equity in case of J. G. Lincoln, Julia B. Glazier, Mary E. Glazier, Phoebe A. Glazier and Hattie F. Glazier, executrices of C. H. Glazier, deceased, and B. J. Mattern, assignee for the benefit of the creditors of Julia T. Glazier v. Harry G. Wakefield, Mary Catherine Wakefield, and Merle Stewart Wakefield, whose guardian, ad. litem, is George W. Wright; J. Stewart Africa, Jane Miller, and W. M. Miller, her husband. Bill in Equity for partition. Before Wíoods, P. J. The opinion…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Me. Justice Moschzisker,

This is a proceeding in. partition on the equity side of the court; when the case was.here before (228 Pa. 546), we were obliged to send it' back for a retrial. The defendant who entered the former appeal is again the appellant, and the few points essential to a determination. of the case are involved in a maze of 50 assignments of. error. Before entering upon a discussion of these points, we take occasion to say that the practice of multiplying specifications of error tends to hurt rather than to help the proper consideration of a cause. When one assignment…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Baker v. CopenbargerIllinois Supreme Court · 1853
  2. Smith v. Lehigh Valley RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
  3. Lincoln v. AfricaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
  4. McCloskey v. PowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
  5. Willock v. Beaver Valley RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Robinson v. PierceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  2. Tombs EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  3. Schulz EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  4. Hoog v. DiehlSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  5. Spang v. MattesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916

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

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

Powered by the Exa API