Estate of Helfenstein

• Decision Date: 26 May 1890
• Docket Number: 190
• Citation: 135 Pa. 293,20 A. 151
• Parties: ESTATE OF ED. HELFENSTEIN, DECEASED
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

20 A. 151

135 Pa. 293

ESTATE OF ED. HELFENSTEIN, DECEASED

No. 190

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

May 26, 1890

Argued April 4, 1890 [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

APPEAL BY E. C. HELFENSTEIN ET AL. FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 3 OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY.

No. 190 January Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 366 September Term 1885, C.P. No. 3.

On November 28, 1885, George M., recently called Edward C. Helfenstein, for himself and in behalf of his mother Julia A. H. Powell, and his sister Anna A. Helfenstein, presented their petition averring that they were the widow and children of Edward Helfenstein, who died in Northumberland county, intestate, on August 23, 1861; that on November 1, 1857, the decedent conveyed to Wm. H. Keichline, of Philadelphia, certain parcels of real estate situate in Northumberland county, in trust to secure certain creditors in the payment of the grantor's indebtedness to them, and, averring that said indebtedness had been paid either actually, or presumptively by lapse of time, prayed for an account and for a re-conveyance.

An answer having been filed to a citation awarded, the matter was so proceeded in that on January 27, 1887, the respondent, protesting that, by reason of his prior accounting in the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland county, he was not liable to account in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia county, exhibited his account as directed. The petitioners then filed a supplemental petition averring that the account filed was not in accordance with the order of the court, and praying that the respondent be ordered to file an account of the rents and profits received by him and paid on account of the said properties. To the rule granted upon this petition the respondent answered specifically and denied that he had ever received rent from the properties, or profit therefrom, except as set forth in the account he had already filed. Whereupon an order was made, March 14, 1887, appointing Mr. Mayer Sultzberger "auditor in the case."

On April 5, 1889, the auditor filed a report, by which, after citing Mengas' App., 19 Pa. 221, as indicating his duties, he proceeded in his findings of fact, which are briefly abstracted as follows:

That on November 1, 1857, the decedent, Edward Helfenstein, residing in Northumberland county, made to Wm. H. Keichline a conveyance of certain parcels of real estate in said county as therein described,

"To have and to hold the same to the said Wm. H. Keichline, his heirs and assigns forever, in trust, however, and to the intent and purpose as follows, to wit: That he, said Wm. H. Keichline, shall and do hold and retain the said property, lands and tenements as a security, and keep the same for the space of one year after the following notes become due, for the purpose of securing and making safe to creditors the following sums, to wit: [here follows a list of the notes with the names of the creditors to whom payable, the deed concluding:] All being debts due the above-mentioned firms by him, the said Edward Helfenstein; and the said Wm. H. Keichline, his heirs and assigns, after the above mentioned notes or obligations are paid and all legal charges, to re-convey the above described property by deed clear of all encumbrances to the said Edward Helfenstein, his heirs, assigns or executors."

That on February 8, 1861, the said Edward Helfenstein made an assignment for the benefit of creditors to Charles P. Helfenstein and John Foy, and that no inventory, or appraisement, or account was ever filed by the assignees; that on August 23, 1861, Edward Helfenstein died, intestate, leaving a widow and children, the petitioners, to survive him, and Charles P. Helfenstein became his administrator and subsequently settled an account, confirmed on March 10, 1868, showing no balance for distribution.

That on June 19, 1863, Wm. H. Keichline caused to be issued in the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland county a writ of scire facias sur mortgage on the conveyance referred to, supra, which was served upon Charles P. Helfenstein, the administrator of the grantor, and the suit proceeded to judgment on August 14, 1865, upon which on January 7, 1867, the properties described in the deed were sold at sheriff's sale to Wm. H. Keichline, who as the first lien creditor receipted to the sheriff for $5,465, being the proceeds of sale less costs.

That at the August Term 1868, of the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland county, the said Keichline, by petition filed, averring that his said purchase of the properties had been made for the benefit of the creditors, obtained an order of the court and thereafter sold the properties to Joseph De Sha Patton for the sum of $4,700; and that subsequently, to wit, on April 28, 1869, the said Keichline filed his first and final account as "trustee of E. Helfenstein, deceased, under certain mortgage trusts," and the same was approved by the said Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland county on August 3, 1869.

That thereupon the said court appointed an auditor to audit and adjust his said account, and to distribute the balance in his hands as shown thereby; that the said auditor found the net balance for distribution to be $3,500.53, and the total amount of creditors' claims under the trust mortgage to be $5,358, awarding to them 65 per cent upon their claims; and that the said Keichline paid to the several distributees, in the auditor's report named, the full amounts of their awards.

Finally, that the said Keichline did not remain in possession of the properties conveyed to him by the deed of November 1, 1857, and did not continue in receipt of the rents and profits thereof, and that no sufficient evidence had been presented to warrant a finding that he ever received any rents, issues or profits therefrom.

As conclusions of law from the foregoing facts, -- citing and considering Pearce v. Wilson, 111 Pa. 21; act of 1705, 1 Sm. L. 59; Wharf v. Howell, 5 Binn. 499; Spencer v. Haynes, 4 W.N. 153; Johnson's App., 103 Pa. 373; Wetherill v. Stillman, 65 Pa. 105; Youngman v. Railroad Co., 65 Pa. 278; Doyle v. Commonwealth, 107 Pa. 20; Hoffman v. Coster, 2 Wh. 453, -- the auditor ruled, that the conveyance of November 1, 1857, was a mortgage, creating a trust in the mortgagee which was purely and simply a trust for the creditors, not complicated by the alleged trust to re-convey, and reported:

Holding these views, the auditor is compelled to find that the proceedings instituted by Keichline in Northumberland county, which ended by a sale of the mortgaged premises under a levari facias and their purchase by Keichline as the mortgage creditor, were entirely regular and valid, and vested in the said Keichline, as trustee for creditors, a title to the premises in question clearly discharged and freed from all equity and benefit of redemption. He further finds that there was not enough realized from the sheriff's sale to pay the secured creditors, and that hence there was no overplus in which the mortgagor was or in anywise could be interested. He further finds that the amount realized from the sheriff's sale and from the subsequent dealings with the realty, was duly applied by Keichline in the interest and for the use of the several secured creditors whose trustee he was, and that those creditors acquiesced in his acts and accepted the dividends awarded to them by the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland county out of the fund raised from the mortgaged land; that such acceptance of dividends would estop any of the persons who received the same from denying the jurisdiction of the court under whose decree they received them; that, in point of fact, none of the creditors has ever complained or now complains of Keichline's acts, nor does the petition aver that any of said creditors has ever made such a complaint, but, on the contrary, all of said creditors have approved and ratified the said Keichline's acts.

The auditor is of the opinion that under the circumstances the petitioners have no standing to demand an accounting from the said Keichline. . . .

No evidence was submitted to your auditor that from 1861 to the present time either the assignees or the administrator ever complained that Keichline had any funds in his hands belonging to them or either of them. The auditor, however does not base his final conclusion on the staleness of the claim, or on the validity of Keichline's accounting in the Common Pleas of Northumberland county. He is of opinion: 1. That in January, 1867, there was a sheriff's deed, duly acknowledged in open court to Keichline, the respondent, and that on the day...