History
  • No items yet
midpage
Unruh v. Lukens
166 Pa. 324
Pa.
1895
Check Treatment
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.

Case Details

Case Name: Unruh v. Lukens
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Feb 4, 1895
Citation: 166 Pa. 324
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 209
Court Abbreviation: Pa.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.