In re White's Estate
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
| Citation | 322 Pa. 85,185 A. 589 |
| Parties | In re WHITE'S ESTATE. Appeal of CASNER. |
| Decision Date | 25 May 1936 |
322 Pa. 85
In re WHITE'S ESTATE.
Appeal of CASNER.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 25, 1936.
Rehearing Denied June 26, 1936.
Appeal No. 437, January term, 1935, from decree of Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County, No. 1164 of 1933; Charles Sinkler, Judge.
Proceeding in the matter of the estate of Lillian M. White, deceased, wherein William G. Casner, administrator c. t. a., presented his account for audit, and the Wilton Building & Loan Association presented two claims for which the administrator had made no provision in his account. From an order dismissing the petition of the administrator c. t. a. for review of an adjudication surcharging the administrator with the sum of $2,400 and allowing both claims presented by the Wilton Building & Loan Association, and praying that the decree of confirmation of such adjudication be vacated and set aside with respect to one of the claims of the Wilton Building & Loan Association in the amount of $3,267, and the surcharge against himself, the administrator c. t. a. appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before KEPHART, C. J., and SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, and BARNES, JJ.
Robert P. Shick, of Philadelphia, for appellant.
J. Willison Smith, Jr., and Edward A. Kelly, both of Philadelphia, for appellee.
BARNES, Justice.
Lillian M. White, a widow, died March 22, 1932, leaving no issue surviving. By her will dated June 12, 1928, she gave the residue of her estate, after a number of pecuniary bequests, to the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Holy Apostles, Philadelphia. A later will of decedent, dated
February 24, 1932, was produced, which named as sole legatees of her estate Abraham and Rupert Bamash. Both wills were offered for probate, whereupon proceedings to contest the validity of the later will were instituted before the register of wills of Philadelphia county. Following hearings before the register, an agreement of settlement was entered into by all the parties in interest. By the terms of this compromise the first will of June 12, 1928, was probated and an administrator c. t. a. appointed, who thereupon paid over to the Bamash claimants $2,400 in cash and mortgages belonging to decedent's estate.
In due course the administrator presented his account to the orphans' court for audit. He claimed credit as an administration expense for the payment made in settlement of the will contest. The auditing judge disallowed this credit and surcharged the administrator with the $2,400 so paid. At the audit the Wilton Building & Loan Association presented two claims for which the administrator had made no provision in his account. These claims were based upon judgments entered on mortgage bonds executed by the decedent as obligor during her life-time. Both claims were allowed by the auditing judge. Exceptions by the administrator to this adjudication were dismissed by the court in banc and a final decree entered.
Two months later the administrator presented to the court below a petition to review the adjudication, praying that the decree of confirmation be vacated and set aside with respect to one of the claims of the Wilton Building & Loan Association and the surcharge against himself. Upon this petition a rule to show cause was granted and an answer filed by the association. After argument in the court below, the petition for review was dismissed. The administrator then took this appeal.
The claims presented by the Wilton Building & Loan Association were upon two bonds secured by mortgages upon which decedent was sole obligor. The decedent, who was then known as Lillian M. Wagner, purchased in 1922 the premises 135 North Millick street, Philadelphia, and at that time executed and delivered a first mortgage upon the property for $3,000 to Cora S. Vanderveer, and a second mortgage for $1,500 to the Wilton Building & Loan...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beaver County Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Winowich
...merely collateral for the payment of some primary obligation, usually a bond. Tubb's Estate, 161 Pa. 252, 254, 28 A. 1109; White's Estate, 322 Pa. 85, 89, 185 A. 589. As between the parties, both at law and in equity, it is a conveyance only so far as necessary to render the instrument effe......
-
Pa. Co. for Ins. on Lives and Granting Annuities v. Scott
...Court had consistently held that the amount of the deficiency judgment could not be altered by later legislation: In re White's Estate, 322 Pa. 85, 185 A. 589; and Beaver Co. B. & L. Ass'n v. Winowich, supra; Knox v. Noggle, 328 Pa. 302, 196 A. 18; Pennsylvania Co., etc., v. Scott, 329 Pa. ......
-
In re Emlen's Estate
...also, Hiscock v. Varick Bank, 206 U.S. 28, 27 S.Ct. 681, 51 L. Ed. 945. 7 Among them are the cases cited in the briefs: White's Estate, 322 Pa. 85, 89, 185 A. 589; Beaver County B. & L. Ass'n v. Winowich, 323 Pa. 483, 490, 187 A. 481, 921. In Strauss v. W. H. Strauss & Co., Inc., 328 Pa. 72......
-
Pines v. Farrell
...mortgage is merely collateral for the payment of some primary obligation...."), affirmed, 633 F.2d 211 (3d Cir.1980); In re White's Estate, 322 Pa. 85, 185 A. 589 (1936) (mortgage is treated only as security for payment of "Pennsylvania subscribes to the lien theory of mortgages, i.e., a mo......