Estate of Cridland
Estate of Cridland
132 Pa. 479; 19 A. 362; 1890 Pa. LEXIS 841
Estate of Cridland
Opinion of the Court
There was no error in refusing to surcharge the accountant with the amount of principal alleged to have been lost by the investment in United States bonds at a premium, which were subsequently called in and paid off at par. For reasons given at length in the opinion of the learned auditing judge, Pen-rose, J., the Orphans’ Court was clearly right in dismissing the exceptions, and confirming his adjudication.
Decree affirmed, and appeal dismissed, at the cost of appellant.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.