Case Name: White's Estate
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1916-05-15
Citations: 254 Pa. 98
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 58
Parties: White’s Estate.
Judges: Before Mestrezat, Potter, Moschzisker, Frazer and Walling, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 254
Pages: 98–99

Head Matter:
White’s Estate.
Practice, O. C. — Decedent’s estates — Adjudication of account— Distribution of funds — Bill of review — Proof of fraud — Practice, Supreme Court.
Where distribution is made in .accordance with the findings of an auditor’s report, which is unappealed from, a bill of review on the ground of fraud is properly dismissed by the lower court, where it appears from a review of the testimony that the court committed no error in finding that no fraud was shown to have entered into the decree or induced it.
Argued May 1, 1916.
Appeal, No. 58, Jan. T., 1916, by Olivia W. Jackman, from decree of O. O. Clinton Co., No. 107, dismissing petition for a bill of review in Estate of James White, deceased.
Before Mestrezat, Potter, Moschzisker, Frazer and Walling, JJ.
Affirmed.
Petition for bill of review. Before Hall, P. J.
The facts appear in White’s Est:, 249 Pa. 115.
The lower court dismissed the petition. Petitioner appealed.
Frror assigned, among others, was the decree of the court.
Max L. Mitchell, with him B. F. Geary and W. C. Kress, for appellant.
R. B. McCormick, with him Brown & Stevenson, for appellee.
May 15, 1916:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
When this case was here on the former appeal, 249 Pa. Í15, from the decree dismissing a petition for a bill of review, we held it to be error for the court to undertake to determine the merits of the controversy until after it had decided that fraud had been sufficiently alleged and proven to give it jurisdiction, and reversed with a procedendo. After the filing of the remittitur, the court proceeded with the cause and found that "no 'fraud had been shown to induce us to change our former decree confirming the auditor's report," and dismissed the petition for the bill of review. The petitioner has taken this appeal. A review of the testimony has not convinced us that the court committed error in finding that no fraud was shown to have entered into the decree or induced it, and we, therefore, see no reason for interfering with the discretion of the court in entering the decree dismissing the petition.
Decree affirmed.