Fidelity Title & Trust Co. v. Bell
Fidelity Title & Trust Co. v. Bell
Opinion of the Court
An examination of the testimony in this case convinces us that the findings of fact contained in the opinion of the court were fully justified by the evidence. We find no error in the conclusions of law made by the master, and are clearly of opinion that the decree of the court should be sustained upon the facts found by the court and the conclusions of law expressed in the master’s report. We do not think there was any error in the rulings of the master upon the questions of evidence submitted to him and, hence, we cannot sustain any of the errors assigned. The question of Miss Bell’s salary was raised too late. On its merits her claim to salary was so plainly just that no question was raised about it, but it was acquiesced in for many years. It does not appear that any exception on this account was taken before the master or in the court below, and it is too late to raise it here for the first time.
Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellant.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- The Fidelity Title and Trust Company, Administrator of George Gray v. Joseph Bell and William Palmer, Executors of the last will and testament of Isabella Bell, Thomas Mellon and Andrew W. Mellon
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Partnership — Beal estate — Personal property. Where a partnership agreement provides thafcreal estate should be considered as partnership property, and after the death of one of the partners, the surviving partner sells the real estate in good faith and for a proper price, and the administrator of the deceased partner with full knowledge of the sale and the terms and conditions of it, receives specifically a part of the purchase money as coming to the estate of his decedent, an administrator d. b. n. of the deceased partner will be estopped by the act of his predecessor. Practice, Supreme Court — Equity—Exceptions—Question raised in Supreme Court first. Where a master appointed to state an account between partners allows a claim for the services of one of them, and no exception is taken to the allowance before the master or in the court below, it is too late to raise the question in the Supreme Court for the first time.