Case Name: Rorer's Estate
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1924-02-04
Citations: 279 Pa. 313
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 200
Parties: Rorer’s Estate.
Judges: Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and Schaffer, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 279
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
Rorer’s Estate.
Churches — Sale of property — Opposition by owners of lots in church yard — Discretion of court — Abuse—Revised Price Act.
A petition by a church under the Revised Price Act to sell a portion of its property, when opposed by owners of burial lots in the churchyard, involves a matter peculiarly for the court below, and a refusal of such petition will not be reversed on appeal, where no abuse of discretion is shown.
Argued January 15, 1924.
Appeal, No. 200, Jan. T., 1924, by Oak Lane Baptist Church, from decree of O. C. Phila. Co., Jan. T., 1922, No. 690, dismissing petition of Oak Lane Baptist Church, to sell real estate in estate of David Rorer, deceased.
Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and Schaffer, JJ.
Affirmed.
Petition to sell real estate.
Exceptions to adjudication of Gummey, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Exceptions sustained by court in banc, and petition dismissed. Oak Lane Baptist Church, petitioner, appealed.
Error assigned was, inter alia, decree dismissing petition, quoting it.
Harvey Gourley, for appellant.
Philip L. Leidy and Thomas Stokes, of Henry, Pepper, Bodine & Stokes, for appellee, were not heard.
February 4, 1924:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The Oak Laue Baptist Church petitioned, under the Revised Price Act, for leave to convey a building, wherein its congregation formerly worshipped, and certain surrounding land; this was opposed by owners of burial lots in an adjoining part of the churchyard, and the orphans' court, after giving the application most careful consideration, refused its approval. We are of opinion that the matter involved is peculiarly one for the court below, and, since we find no abuse of discretion, its conclusion must be sustained.
The order dismissing the petition is affirmed at cost of the appellant.