Estate of Whitman
Decision Date | 12 March 1900 |
Docket Number | 210 |
Citation | 45 A. 673,195 Pa. 144 |
Parties | Estate of Edward G. Whitman, Deceased. Appeal of Mary Estelle Powell |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued January 10, 1900
Appeal, No. 210, Jan. T., 1899, by Mary Estella Powell, from decree of O.C. Phila. Co., dismissing exceptions to adjudication. Affirmed.
Exceptions to adjudication.
The facts appear by the adjudication of PENROSE, J., which was as follows:
The decedent, a widely known manufacturer of high grade confectionery, doing business for many years at 812 Chestnut street, died December 6, 1892, leaving a widow, Susanna Whitman, and three children, Edward G. Whitman, Jr., Mary E Powell and Ann E. Whitman.
By his will, proved December 15, 1892, he directed the payment of his debts and funeral expenses "as soon as convenient after" his death, and after a specific gift of all his household goods and furniture to his wife, gave the residue of his estate, real and personal, one third to his wife and two thirds, in equal shares, to his said children, providing however, as to his business as follows:
The entire estate of the testator consisted of his household furniture, etc., appraised at $7,520.70, specifically bequeathed to his wife; three vacant lots in West Philadelphia, directed to be sold as above, and the stock, fixtures, book accounts, etc., of his business, appraised at $26,746.49, viz: stock at store, $5,583.67; machinery and fixtures, $14,201.62; book debts, considered good, $3,882.39; book debts, considered doubtful, $463.60, and cash on hand January 1, 1893, $2,615.21 (the good-will, by the express provisions of the will, not being appraised, though it was to go to the son in the event of his becoming the purchaser at the appraised value of the stock and fixtures).
Letters testamentary were granted to Mrs. Whitman, Miss Whitman and Edward G. Whitman, Jr., and the appraisement fixing values as above, though stating items with much detail, was taken in the manner directed by the will. Mrs. Powell, it is true, who, with her husband, Samuel W. Powell, was living, as the auditing judge infers from letters which were in evidence, in Media, was not asked to unite with her mother and sister in the selection of one of the appraisers, but she stated that she would have selected the one whom they named, and expressed her satisfaction with the inventory and appraisement by joining with the other parties in interest, including her brother, in a written approval.
The son had been manager or foreman of the business for many years before the death of the decedent, receiving a salary of $20.00 per week. He was, of course, familiar with the manner in which it was conducted. Owing, perhaps, to increased competition, it had ceased to be as profitable as it once was, and Mrs. Powell and her husband were apprehensive that its continuance might result in disaster. This was also the opinion of Arthur M. Burton, Esq., acting as their counsel, though in a friendly rather than on a professional basis, and it was suggested that it would be better to create a joint stock company, with an allotment of stock to the parties according to their respective interests. Mrs. Powell's interest, however, was but two ninths, and the others, viz: her mother, sisters and brother, thought they had no right to disregard the wishes of the testator. It was, therefore, continued without interruption, the son acting as manager, and the mother, from time to time, advancing such moneys as were required to pay debts, replenish stock, etc., and for the year succeeding the death of the testator interest at the rate of six per cent was paid upon the appraised value of the business, in accordance with the direction of the will, and duly distributed, Mrs. Powell asking for and receiving her share. But it became evident as time passed that the business was not earning profits, that it was falling behindhand, but it was hoped that the trouble would be but temporary and that if it could be outlived there might be a return of prosperity. Business creditors, however, were becoming clamorous, and finally, after obtaining extensions from time to time, it became necessary, in order to save from the wreck some of the moneys she had advanced for the purposes of the estate, to issue executions on the judgments held by Mrs. Whitman, and what was left of the stock and fixtures was sold by the sheriff at public sale conducted by M. Thomas & Sons, realizing but a small fraction of the debt, and leaving unpaid altogether debts contracted in the course of carrying on the business after the decedent's death to the amount of several thousand dollars.
Mr. Lyle, on behalf of Mrs. Powell, contended that the accountants were not protected by the provision of the will with regard to continuing the business; that under any circumstances, there was no right to borrow money or to use any part of the estate outside of the business for the purpose; that the management was reckless and without proper accounts; and that Edward G. Whitman, Jr., or if he alone were not responsible, all the accountants should be now charged with the stock and machinery at the appraised value and the value of the real estate sold; and, after crediting only payments of debts existing at the death of the testator, funeral expenses and expenses of administration, that two ninths of the balance should be awarded to her.
The estate of a decedent at the moment of his death becomes assets for the payment of his creditors, and no provision in his will can impair their rights. As against them, therefore his executors would be liable for loss arising from carrying on his business, except for the purpose of winding it up, no matter how explicitly this should be directed by the will. But as against legatees a very different principle applies. They are mere volunteers, having such rights only as the testator chooses to give them. He is dealing with his own and may do with it as he pleases. Those who accept the benefits of his will cannot repudiate any of its provisions. It is true that executors carrying on a business under the directions of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial- In re Mills' Estate
-
Nagle's Estate
... ... and preserve the property in substantially the same condition ... in which it was at the time of the death of testator. The ... word "hold" has been repeatedly construed by the ... courts, as shown by the following decisions: Whitman's ... Est., 195 Pa. 144; Semple's Est., 189 Pa. 385; ... Bowker's Est., 12 Phila. 88; Neff's App., 57 Pa. 91; ... Keller's App., 33 Leg. Int. 110; Derbyshire's Est., 2 ... Ash. 439; Wood's Est., 272 Pa. 8; Kline's Est., 280 ... Pa. 41; Detre's Est., 273 Pa. 341; Brown's Est., 287 ... Pa. 499; ... ...
-
Estate of Denlinger, In re
...or guarded against, he should not be surcharged for any decrease in value caused by the enactment of the housing code. Whitman's Estate, 195 Pa. 144, 45 A. 673 (1900). Therefore, the appellee should only be surcharged for the decrease in the property's value caused by his failure to maintai......
-
In re Estate of Denlinger
... ... trying to sell it ... Since the ... appellee cannot be surcharged with the losses which ordinary ... care could not have foreseen or guarded against, he should ... not be surcharged for any decrease in value caused by the ... enactment of the housing code. Whitman's Estate, 195 Pa ... 144, 45 A. 673 [449 Pa. 398] (1900). Therefore, the appellee ... should only be surcharged for the decrease in the ... property's value caused by his failure to maintain and ... preserve it; that is, his failure to repair and protect the ... property from destruction by ... ...