TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Williamson's Appeal

Williamson's Appeal. [Gray's Estate.]

Williamson's Appeal, 17 A. 8 (Pa. 1889)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 4, 1889
Docket
Nos. , No. 206
Citations
17 A. 81 Monag. 2411889 Pa. LEXIS 1310
Syllabus
A judgment against the heirs and administrator is not a lien indefinite in its duration, as is a judgment recovered against the decedent in his life time, hut it remains a lien upon the lands of the decedent for only five years from the date of its entry. The judgment against the heirs is de terris only, and, unless properly revived, cannot, on distribution, be paid out of the shares of the heirs in the proceeds of the real estate. It seems that an order of the orphans’ court for the sale of lands to pay the debts of a decedent does not operate as a toll of the statute of limitations as to the debts scheduled.
Summary
Appeal, No. 206, Jan. T. 1888, from a decree of the O. C. of Delaware Go., dismissing exceptions to the report of an auditor, distributing the proceeds of an orphans’ court sale of real estate to pay debts, at Sept. T. 1874. G-reen and Clark, JJ., absent. The following facts appeared from the papers and records offered in evidence and from the report of the auditor, W. Boss Brown, Esq.: The decedent, William Gray, died on June 10, 1874, intestate, seized of a farm in Delaware county. Letters of administration were originally granted on the estate of the decedent to James Dunwoody and Beece Pyott on July 16, 1874. On Sept. 28, 1874, the administrators made application to the orphans’ court for an order to sell the real estate of the decedent for the payment of debts, and an order for the sale of the real estate was made on the same day. On Nov. 27,1874, the administrators returned “ no sale.” No further order was applied for or issued until April 6, 1885, when an alias order was issued to Henry C. Howard, Esq., to whom'letters de bonis non had been granted, on April 4,1885, the former administrators both having died in the interim. Among the debts of decedent, scheduled by the administrators in the original application for an order of sale, was a note of $90.00 to George M. Hunter, dated February 12, 1867. On April 18, 1878, Hunter brought suit on this note in the common pleas of Delaware county, against the then surviving administrator, James Dunwoody, and recovered judgment on May 20, 1878, for $140.00 and costs. On Nov. 19, 1878, a writ of sci. fa. to charge real estate was issued on this judgment in which Janies Dunwoody, administrator of William Gray, deceased, and Bobert Gray and Bebecca G. Tyler, heirs of said decedent, were named as defendants; to which the sheriff returned served on James Dunwoody and Bobert Gray, and nihil habet as to Bebecca Tyler. On Dec. 9,1878, an alias sci. fa. issued, naming the same parties as defendants, to which the sheriff made the same return, and upon which judgment was entered against the defendants, for want of an appearance, on Jan. 15, 1879, and damages assessed at the sum of $145.49. The real estate of decedent was sold under the order of April 6, 1885. At the audit, a claim was made for the’ payment of the judgment of Jan. 15,1879, out of the funds. The auditor disallowed the claim. Exceptions to the auditor’s report were dismissed by the court, in an opinion, reported in 3 Del. Oo. B. 325, by Clayton, P. J. Pending these proceedings, Hunter died, and letters testamentary were granted to Williamson. The assignments of error specified the action of the court, 1, in confirming the report of the auditor, and decreeing distribution in accordance therewith; 2, in awarding any part of the fund for distribution to the heirs of William Gray, deceased, until all his just, 'and legal debts had been paid out of the same; 3, in not awarding to the appellant the amount of the judgment of Jan. .15, 1879.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam,

This was not a judgment recovered against the decedent in his lifetime, but against his administrator after his death. Had it been a judgment against the decedent, it must be conceded it would remain a lien upon his land in the hands of his heirs. It was recovered against the administrator May 20, 1878. Judgment was obtained against the heirs Jan. 15, 1879, ■and it was therefore a valid lien against the lands of the decedent for five years from that date. The lien expired Jan. 14, 1884. It could have been continued by a scire facias, but this was not ■done, and the lien upon the land was lost. The learned auditor correctly held that, as the judgment had lost its lien when the land was sold, it could not participate in the distribution of the fund xaised from the sale. The appellant contends, however, that, if the lien is gone, the order of the orphans’ court for a sale of the land for the payment of debts, made in 1874, when the debt was a lien, has the effect of a trust to pay all debts existing at that time. This position cannot be sustained. An order of sale for the payment of •debts creates no trust; it is a mere authority to sell for the payment ■of such debts as may bé a lien upon the lands. If, pending the ■execution of the order, a lien is suffered to expire, it ceases to be operative so far as the lands are concerned, and the holder must look to the personal estate. Nor is there any force in the position that the lien was good against Bobert Gray and Bebecca Tyler, parties to the scire facias. The judgment against them was de terris; it was not a, personal judgment. We find no error in this record.

Judgment affirmed.

Note. — In Arndt’s Ap., 117 Pa. 120 , it is said that the question of lien, or the running of the statute, is determined hy the status of the claim at the time of the . confirmation of the sale.

In Keyser’s Ap., decided Jan. 28,1889, to he reported in 23 or 24 Pa., it is decided, in an opinion hy Paxson, O. J., that a demand made upon executors for the jpayment of a debt accruing in the life-time of the testator, "will not stop the running of the' statute, overruling language in the first opinion in Yorks’s Ap., . 110 Pa. 76 , to the contrary.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Yorks's Appeal, 1 A. 162 (Pa. 1885) 31
Appeal of Arndt, 11 A. 633 (Pa. 1887) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list