DocketNumber: No. 2; Appeal, No. 264
Judges: Brown, McCollum, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Potter
Filed Date: 7/17/1901
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/13/2024
Opinion by
We see no error in the construction adopted by the Superior Court, of the contract of October 9,1878. The terms of the agreement fully justify the conclusion that the estate is a fund out of which payment for the improvements is to be made. Neither do we see any cause to question the allowance of the . claim of Peter Sutton, for the appraised value of the improvements.
The assignments of error are overruled, and, with the modification noted, as to the allowance of interest upon the claim of Peter Sutton, the judgment is affirmed.