King v. Ambrose

Citations

• 232 Pa. 617
• 81 A. 714
• 1911 Pa. LEXIS 774

Syllabus

<p>Partition — Jurisdiction—Real estate located in several counties— Erroneous finding of jurisdictional facts — Evidence to overcome responsive answer.</p> <p>1. Under the provisions of the Act of February 20, 1854, P. L. 89, relating to proceedings in partition, “that when such a proceeding is intended to embrace lands in more than one county, it shall be brought only in the county .... where the larger part of the decedent’s' estate in value shall be situated,” the court of one county has no jurisdiction of a bill of partition of real estate situated in part in the county where the court’s finding that at the time the petition was filed the larger part of the lands, both in quantity and value was situated within its county was not only not supported by the measure of proof required in equity practice to overcome a sworn responsive answer to the jurisdictional averments of the bill, but was clearly erroneous in view of the documentary evidence in the case, by which it appears that 2,018 acres, valued at $8,050 were situated in another county, and only 1,417 acres, valued at $7,450, within the county in which the petition was presented.</p> <p>Appeals — Equity rule 92 — Statement of errors.</p> <p>2. Failure to file in the court below a statement of errors required by equity rule 92 is not necessarily fatal to an appeal, and the filing of such a statement may be allowed nunc pro tunc where the filing will impose no hardship on the other party.</p>