Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1898

In re Estate of Lafferty

In re Estate of Lafferty
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Decided January 17, 1898 · Appeal · Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams
184 Pa. 502; 40 W.N.C. 320; 39 A. 1116; 1898 Pa. LEXIS 928

Counsel

F. A. Eartr-anft and James M. Beck, with them W. F. Sarrityr for appellant, Patrick J. Corcoran., Samuel Gustine Thompson, with him George L. Grawfordr for appellee, Charles H. Lafferty,, J. Willis Martin, with him Eli Kirk Price for appellee, Rose E. Lafferty., Henry Budd, with him George Peirce, for appellees, Patrick Lafferty and Francis P. Lafferty., E. Spencer Miller, for appellee, Charles T. Maginnis.

In re Estate of Lafferty

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

A careful consideration of this record with special reference to the several questions involved has failed to convince us *519that there is any substantial error either in the findings of fact, or in the conclusions drawn therefrom by the learned court below. As to some of the former—especially the question, whether Rose E. Lafferty was a member of the firm of P. Lafferty & Co.—the testimony was conflicting and contradictory, but we cannot say that the finding, as to either, was not in accordance with the weight of the evidence as it correctly appeared to the learned judge who had the witnesses before him, and thus possessed opportunities of forming a correct judgment that an appellate court cannot have. All the findings of fact, respectively, rest on sufficient evidence, and we must assume that they are severally correct until the contrary clearly appears.

It is unnecessary to notice the specifications of error in detail. It would consume much time to no useful purpose. They are all overruled.

Decree affirmed and appeals dismissed at appellant’s costs.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.