Unruh v. Lukens

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania February 4, 1895

Unruh v. Lukens, 166 Pa. 324 (Pa. 1895)

31 A. 110; 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1204

Dean, Fell, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The controlling facts of this case are sufficiently presented *332in the pleadings and report of the learned master which was approved by the court below. Our examination of the record has satisfied us that there is no substantial error either in the findings of fact, or in the legal conclusions of which the decree is predicated. There appears to be nothing in either of the specifications of error that requires special notice. The questions involved are sufficiently considered in the master’s report, and for reasons there given we think the decree should be affirmed. There appears to be no reason for imposing any part of the costs on the appellee.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by appellant.

Reference

Full Case Name: Emeline Unruh v. Benjamin F. Lukens
Cited By: 8 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Deed—Deed of trust—Bill for reconveyance—Equity. On a bill in equity by an elderly woman to compel a reconveyance of property which she had deeded to her physician, a decree will be entered for plaintiff where the findings of the master, supported by competent evidence, show that the deed was not delivered to defendant, but had been retained by plaintiff’s attorney; that the deed was signed without consideration; that plaintiff’s attorney, who appeared to be also defendant’s attorney, had assured plaintiff that she could revoke the deed at any time; that the effect of the deed was never properly explained to plaintiff ; and that defendant was both physician and attorney in fact of plaintiff, had great influence with her, and had influenced her to make the deed. Costs in equity. In such case a court of equity should not impose a part of the costs upon the plaintiff.