TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Leonard's Estate

Leonard's Estate, 75 A. 359 (Pa. 1910)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 3, 1910
Docket
Nos. , No. 192
Judges
Brown, Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Potter, Stewart
Citations
75 A. 359226 Pa. 2771910 Pa. LEXIS 753
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Orphans’ court — Auditor’s findings of fact — Guardian and ward— Sale of real estate. An auditor’s finding of fact that a guardian did not sell his ward’s real estate for an inadequate price, when based upon sufficient evidence, and confirmed by the orphans’ court, will be accepted as conclusive by the appellate court, unless manifest error is made to appear.
Summary
Appeal, No. 192, Oct. T., 1909, by-Maude C. Leonard, now Maude C. Manon, from decree of O. C. Washington Co., May T., 1908, No. 62, dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report in Estate of Maude C. Leonard, now Maude C. Manon, a Minor. Exceptions to report of H. B. Hughes, Esq., auditor. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. Errors assigned were in dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Fell

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Opinion by Mr. Justice Fell,

This appeal is from a decree of the orphans’ court confirming the report of an auditor appointed to pass upon exceptions filed to the account of a guardian. It was sought at the audit to surcharge the guardian for selling the undivided interest of his ward in real estate at an inadequate price. It is conceded that the. exceptions to the guardian’s account could not be sustained without proof of actual fraud or gross negligence, and that this appeal cannot be sustained without overruling the findings of fact by the auditor, approved by the court. There was no evidence of actual fraud, and the auditor re *278 ported that the undivided interest of the ward at the time of the sale was under the testimony at best but a matter of conjecture; that the guardian acted in good faith and under the advice of reputable counsel and that, although the price at which the sale of the undivided interest was made was at a less rate per acre than the whole tract would have sold for, it was not, under the circumstances, grossly inadequate. The court upon a review of the findings of the auditor and of all the testimony was of opinion that the guardian acted in entire good faith, and that the most that could be charged against him was a mistake in judgment. It would require very clear evidence of error to lead to a reversal of these findings. It has been repeatedly said that the findings of fact by an auditor, approved by the court, will be accepted as conclusively established unless manifest error is apparent: Plankinton’s Est., 212 Pa. 235.

The decree is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Plankinton's Estate, 61 A. 888 (Pa. 1905) 12

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list