Case Name: Lentz's Estate
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1918-06-03
Citations: 261 Pa. 530
Docket Number: Appeals, Nos. 52, 53, 54 and 160
Parties: Lentz’s Estate.
Judges: Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer and Wauling, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 261
Pages: 530–531

Head Matter:
Lentz’s Estate.
Witnesses — Competency•—Witness called generally by objecting side — Subsequent competency for all purposes.
1. Where a witness is called generally by a party later objecting to his competency he is thereby rendered competent for either side for all purposes.
< Practice, Supreme Court — Findings of auditor — Affirmance by lower court — Appeal.
2. Where the findings of fact of an auditor are based upon sufficient evidence, followed by correct legal conclusions, and are approved by the lower court, they will not he disturbed on appeal.
Submitted May 6,1918.'
Appeals, Nos. 52, 53, 54 and 160, Jan. T., 1917, from decree of O. C. Lycoming Co., March T., 1913, No. 26, dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report in Estate of Harry W. Lentz, Deceased.
Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer and Wauling, JJ.
Affirmed.
Appeal from adjudication. Before Whitehead, P. J.
The lower court dismissed the’ exceptions to and confirmed the report of the auditor, James B. Krause, Esq. George W. Lentz, Sarah Lentz, Mary J. Lentz; and Wil liam P. Beeber and William L. Colt, surviving executors of the last will and testament of J. Artley Beeber, deceased, who was executor of the last will and testament of Harry W. Lentz, deceased, exceptants, appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was in dismissing exceptions to the adjudication.
Wm. W. Porter, with him Henry I. Fox and Henry Freedley, for George W. Lentz, Sarah Lentz and Mary J. Lentz.
8. T. McCormick, of McCormick & Hippie, with him Dimner Beeber, for William P. Beeber and William L. Colt.
June 3, 1918:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The findings of fact by the learned auditor were all based upon sufficient evidence, and were followed by correct legal conclusions. We have not been convinced that there is any error in his well considered report, which was properly approved by the court below. In dismissing these cross appeals nothing more need be said, unless it be to add that when W. P. Beeber was called as a witness generally by those now objecting to his competency, they made him a competent witness for either side for all purposes: Seip v. Storch, 52 Pa. 210; Bennett v. Williams, 57 Pa. 404.
Decree affirmed and appeals dismissed at the costs of the respective appellants.