Lutton, Administrator, v. Powell

• Decision Date: 01 August 1925
• Citation: 7 D.&C. 245
• Parties: Lutton, Administrator, v. Powell.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

7 D.&C. 245

Lutton, Administrator, v. Powell.

District Court of Pennsylvania.

August 1, 1925.

Escheat — Decedent dying without kin — Sale of real estate — Jurisdiction of Orphans' Court — Acts of June 7, 1917, and April 18, 1923.

1. The matter of the escheat of property of an intestate who dies without known kin is a proper subject for inclusion in an act regulating the descent of property of intestates.

2. Section 24 of the Intestate Act of June 7, 1917, P. L. 429, is properly amended by the Escheat Act of April 18, 1923, P. L. 70.

3. The Commonwealth has the power not only to escheat property found to be without lawful owner, but also the power to assume control and custody thereof and bring it into the treasury of the State to await further proceedings by way or escheat.

4. The Act of April 18, 1923, P. L. 70, relates to procedure only and applies to the estate of a person dying prior to the date of the act.

5. Under the Act of April 18, 1923, P. L. 70, the Orphans' Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition by an administrator of a person dying without known kin to sell the real estate of such person.

6. In such case, the administrator should file an account of the proceeds of the sale and notify the Auditor General that such proceeds are apparently subject to escheat.

Case stated. C. P. Beaver Co., March T., 1925, No. 305.

John A. Elliott, for plaintiff; Holt, Holt & Richardson, for defendant.

READER, J., Aug. 1, 1925.—

This proceeding is now before us upon a case stated.

From the case stated it appears that Clara B. Berniece, whose administrator is plaintiff in the case, died intestate Oct. 9, 1922, being then a resident of the Borough of Beaver Falls, Beaver County, Pennsylvania. It is further stated as a fact that said decedent left no surviving spouse and no heirs or kindred capable or competent to inherit the real and personal property of which she died seized and possessed. Letters of administration were granted on Oct. 16, 1922, to the plaintiff as administrator of the estate of said decedent by the Register of Wills of the County of Beaver. Said administrator, by proceedings in the Orphans' Court of Beaver County, sold and conveyed all of the real estate of the said decedent, except that involved in the instant case, for the payment of the debts of the decedent, and the proceeds of this real estate, together with the personal estate of the decedent, were applied to the payment of the debts of the decedent and were sufficient for this purpose.

Later, the administrator, on Dec. 10, 1923, presented a petition to the Orphans' Court of Beaver County, at No. 12, December Term, 1923, praying the court to make an order for the sale of the remaining real estate of the decedent not required for the payment of her debts, under the provisions of the Act of April 18, 1923, P. L. 70, which act amends section 24 of the Intestate Act, approved June 7, 1917, P. L. 429. Upon this petition an order of sale was made by the Orphans' Court, and pursuant to this order, on Feb. 14, 1924, the plaintiff as administrator of said estate sold the two lots involved in the instant case to the defendant, Baker D. Powell, for the sum of $2605. Upon return made by the administrator, this sale was confirmed by the Orphans' Court of Beaver County, the confirmation becoming absolute on April 10, 1924. The purchaser, the defendant in this case, paid 10 per cent. of his bid; the balance, amounting to $2334.50, has not been paid. The plaintiff has tendered a deed to the defendant for the said land, purporting to convey to the defendant such right, title and interest in the said property as the said decedent had therein at and immediately prior to the time of her death, and has demanded of the defendant the balance of the purchase money. The payment of this balance has been refused by the defendant.

The defendant refused to pay the balance of said purchase money and take title to said land, on the ground that the Orphans' Court was without jurisdiction to make the order of sale for said land and to confirm the sale thereof. This action was then brought by said administrator against the defendant to recover the balance of said purchase money; and said action having been instituted, the facts were agreed upon by counsel for both parties and submitted to the court in the case stated above referred to.

The question submitted to the court for its decision upon the case stated is as follows: "If the court be of the opinion that, under the facts above set forth, including those set forth in the said petition, the said Orphans' Court had jurisdiction to make the said order and decree for the sale of the above described property; that the proceedings on said petition were regular and lawful; and that a deed executed and delivered in pursuance of said decree and proceedings would vest in the defendant, his heirs and assigns, such estate and interest in said property as the decedent had therein at and immediately before the time of her decease, and such interest and title therein as vested in the Commonwealth by escheat as aforesaid, then judgment to be entered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $2334.50; if not, then judgment to be entered in favor of the defendant for the sum of $260.50. The costs to follow the judgment, and either party to have the right of appeal to the Supreme or Superior Court, as the amount in controversy shall determine."

Section 24 of the Intestate Act of 1917, above referred to, reads as follows: "Section 24. In default of all such known heirs or kindred or surviving spouse competent to take as aforesaid, the real and personal estate of such intestate shall go to and be vested in the Commonwealth by escheat."

Said section, as amended by the Act of April 18, 1923, P. L. 70, above cited, reads as follows: "Section 24. In default of all such known heirs or kindred or surviving spouse competent to take as aforesaid, the real and personal estate of such intestate remaining after the payment of all just debts and legal charges, shall be sold by the executor or administrator of the estate, and the net proceeds of such sale shall be, by him, paid into the State Treasury for the use of the Commonwealth. Such sale shall be made only under the supervision of the court having jurisdiction of the estate and in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth providing for the payment into the State Treasury of unclaimed funds in the hands of fiduciaries."

It was under the said Act of 1923 that the administrator above named undertook to sell the property in question. As stated, his petition was presented at No. 12, December Term, 1923, in the Orphans' Court of this county. The petition sets out the date of the death of Clara B. Berniece and the granting of letters upon her estate as above stated. It further sets out that she died seized of certain real estate, and that after the sale of certain parts thereof for the payment of the debts of the decedent, two lots of land in the said Borough of Beaver Falls remained, being those involved in the instant case, as more fully described in said petition. It is further averred in the petition that said decedent died leaving to survive her no known heirs or kindred or surviving spouse competent to take the real and personal estate. The petition prays for an order to sell said real estate pursuant to the provisions of the Act of April 18, 1923, above set out. Upon this petition an order was made on Dec. 10, 1923, authorizing and directing said administrator to make sale of said real estate at public sale. The order also directed the giving of notice by publication and hand-bills in the manner required by law and rule of court as to Orphans' Court sales generally. The administrator filed his bond, which was approved by the court; made sale of the real estate as above stated; made return thereof to the court, and the same was confirmed absolutely, as is also set out in the foregoing statement of facts.

It seems to us, in the first place, that if the Act of April 18, 1923, under which the sale was made, is a valid legislative act, the petition presented by the administrator for the sale of the real estate was sufficient to bring the proceeding within the terms of the act and give the court jurisdiction. The sale seems to have been regularly made according to the requirements of the act and our rules of court. Even in the event, however, of there being irregularity in the proceedings, such irregularities would be cured by the confirmation of the sale, assuming that the court had jurisdiction.

The case was submitted to the court upon the papers. The case was not argued orally before the court, nor were any briefs filed by counsel either for the plaintiff or the defendant. The question submitted for the consideration of the court is the general question above stated, as quoted from the case stated, and counsel have not more specifically stated any legal questions that may be raised by the general question stated or the decision of which may be necessary in order to decide that general question. We have not, therefore, had the assistance of counsel in directing our attention to legal phases of this case which may be important in deciding it. We have examined a great many statutes and decisions bearing upon what seem to us to be the controlling questions in the case. We may have overlooked some important question, but it seems to us that the questions hereinafter considered are controlling and determine the general question submitted to us.

It seems to us that the questions involved may be stated as relating, first of all, to the general validity and effect of the Act of 1923; and in the second place, as relating to the applicability of that statute to the estate of the decedent in this case, she having died prior to the approval of the Act of April 18, 1923. It seems to us that the Amending Act of April 18, 1923, is within the purview of a general intestate act such...