
    Lewis Rees’s Estate. William Tennent’s Appeal.
    
      Decedents’ estates—Distribution—Illegitimates—Act of April 8, 1833, sec. 17.
    Under the act of April 8, 1833, sec. 17, P. L. 250, an illegitimate has no right to inherit from his uncle by representation through his mother.
    Argued Feb. 11, 1895.
    Appeal, No. 388, Jan. T., 1894, by William Tennent, from decree of O. C. Chester Co., dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report, in estate of Lewis Rees, deceased.
    Before Sterrett, C. J., McCollum, Mitchell, Dean and Fell, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Exceptions to auditor’s report.
    Hemphill, J., filed the following opinion:
    “ The fourteen exceptions filed to the auditor’s report, raise two questions:
    “1st. Has the auditor erred in finding that William Tennent, Jr., was the illegitimate son of William Tennent, Sr.
    “ 2d. If illegitimate has he erred in holding that the acts of assembly do not confer upon him the right to inherit from his •uncle, by representation through his mother.
    
      “ William Tennent, Jr., a claimant to a share in this estate, is the son of William Tennent, Sr., and Alice, a sister of the decedent, whose death occurred previous to that of her brother.
    “ The auditor finds that he was an illegitimate son, and a careful examination of his report and of the testimony taken by him, satisfies us that he was correct in so finding.
    “ Being therefore an illegitimate he could not inherit at common law, and is expressly denied the benefits of our intestate act of April 8, 1888, the 17th section of which provides that ‘ The provisions of this act relative to decedents and distribution of real and personal estate, among the descendants and collateral relations of intestates, shall be construed to mean such persons only as have been born in lawful wedlock.’
    “ The exceptions are therefore dismissed, the report confirmed, and an order made to pay out in accordance with the auditor’s schedule of distribution.”
    
      'Errors assigned were in dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report.
    
      James C. Sellers, for appellant.
    
      J. Frank E. Eause, for appellees, was not heard
    filed March 5, 1896:
   Per Curiam,

We find no error in this record. Appellant’s claim depended on a question of fact, which appears to have been rightly determined in favor of the appellees. All that is necessary to be said on the subject will be found in the opinion of the court below. For reasons therein stated the decree should not be disturbed.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by appellant.  