Estate of Cridland
132 Pa. 479 | Pa. | 1890
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.
