Perry v. Livingston

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Perry v. Livingston, 191 Pa. 349 (Pa. 1899)
43 A. 230; 1899 Pa. LEXIS 824
Dean, Fell, Green, Mitchell, Sterrett

Perry v. Livingston

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

A careful consideration of this record, aided by the able argument of the learned counsel for appellant, has not convinced any of us that the learned judge of the forty-fifth judicial district who specially presided at the hearing, etc., committed any error that requires either a reversal or' modification of the decree.

*361On the contrary, we are satisfied that his findings of fact were warranted by the pleadings and proofs and that there is no substantial error in any of his rulings or conclusions of law.

A detailed consideration of the specifications of error would necessarily lead us oyer a very considerable part of the ground covered by the learned trial judge, and end in consuming much time to no useful purpose. Aside from that, we are satisfied that neither of the questions involved requires extended comment.

On the facts found by the court below and the conclusions correctly drawn therefrom, we think the decree should not be disturbed.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at appellants’ costs.

Reference

Full Case Name
Susan B. Perry and Henry C. Perry v. Isaac Livingston
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published
Syllabus
Equity—Finding of fact—Trustee ex maleficio—Evidence. On a bill in equity by a husband and wife to have the defendant declared a trustee ex maleficio of an undivided one half interest in land of which the wife held the other half the Supreme Court will not reverse a finding by the trial judge on sufficient evidence, that the defendant, at plaintiff’s request, bought the interest, which was in controversy, with the purpose of substituting himself as a friendly cotenant in the place of an unfriendly one, but that he used his own money and bought for himself alone, and not under any agreement to hold the property in trust for the plaintiffs.