Case Name: Hoyt's Estate
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1911-05-23
Citations: 232 Pa. 189
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 100
Parties: Hoyt’s Estate.
Judges: Before Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Moschzisker, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 232
Pages: 189–190

Head Matter:
Hoyt’s Estate.
Appeals — Decedents’ estates — Distribution—Interlocutory order.
A decree referring back the report of an auditor in a decedent’s estate with direction that he make distribution in accordance with the opinion of the court sustaining exceptions to it is but an interlocutory-order from which no appeal can be taken.
Argued April 20,1911.
Appeal, No. 100, Jan. T., 1911, by Wm. T. S. Hoyt, Dora Hafer et al., devisees, etc., from decree of O. C. Clearfield Co., No. 3,250, referring report back to auditor, in Estate of Milo Hoyt, deceased.
Before Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Moschzisker, JJ.
Appeal quashed.
Exceptions to report of Hazard A. Murray, Esq., auditor.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
The court sustained certain of the exceptions and referred the report back to the auditor to make .distribution in accordance with the opinion.
Error assigned was decree of the court.
Frank Fielding and Oscar Mitchell, for appellants.
Harry Boulton, with him W. C. Miller, for appellee.
May 23, 1911:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
This appeal is from a decree referring the report of an auditor back to him with direction that he make distribution in accordance with the opinion of the court sustaining two exceptions to it. This was but an interlocutory order. There can be no final decree until the schedule of distribution reported by the auditor has been absolutely confirmed by the court.
Appeal quashed.