
    Myers’s Estate.
    
      Decedents’ estates — Marriage—Evidence.
    A finding by the orphans’ court that a person claiming to be the son of decedent had not been born in lawful wedlock, sustained by sufficient evidence, will not be reversed.
    
      May 25, 1922:
    Argued April 12, 1922.
    Appeal, No. 370, Jan. T., 1922, by Donald Myers, from decree of O. C. Luzerne Co., No. 343, of 1905, dismissing petition to compel executors to file account' in Estate of Lawrence Myers, deceased.
    Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Simpson, Kephart and Schaffer, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Petition to compel executors to file account. Before Freas, P. J.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    Petition dismissed. Donald Myers appealed.
    
      Error assigned was decree, quoting record.
    
      Chas. B. Lenahan and S. J. Strauss, with him Frank A. MoQuigan and P. J. McCormick, for appellant.
    
      Evan C. J ones, for appellee.
   Per Curiam,

The question on this appeal involves the fact of an alleged common law marriage. The court below, on a thorough consideration of all the proofs presented, refused to believe the testimony of appellant’s mother, that she had contracted a marriage with his father; and, as a result, concluded that appellant was “not born in lawful wedlock.”

The relevant rules of law have been so recently considered and fully discussed by us (Stevenson’s Est., 272 Pa. 291; Craig’s Est., 273 Pa. 530), that it would serve no useful purpose to go over them again at this time; nor do we think it necessary to review the particular facts in the present case. It is sufficient to state that, after reading the testimony, we are not convinced of error.

The decree is affirmed.  