Slaymaker v. Farmers' Nat. Bank of Lancaster

• Decision Date: 01 October 1883
• Citation: 103 Pa. 616
• Parties: Slaymaker, Executor, etc., <I>versus</I> Farmers' National Bank of Lancaster.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 616

103 Pa. 616

Slaymaker, Executor, etc., versus Farmers' National Bank of Lancaster.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 16, 1883.

October 1, 1883.

May 16th 1883.

Before GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRET and GREEN, JJ. MERCUR, C. J., did not sit. CLARK, J., absent.

ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county: Of January Term 1883, No. 174.

Amos Slaymaker and George M. Kline, for the plaintiff in error.—The undoubted right of Mrs. Mathiot, as administratrix de bonis non, to receive the remaining assets belonging to the estate of the decedent, did not entitle her to collect the balance of the deposit account of her predecessor in the administration. Non constat, that on the settlement of her predecessor's administration account it would not appear that he was entitled to credit as against his intestate's estate for a part or the whole of said balance. The bank, being a mere debtor to its depositor, was bound to pay the balance to him, if alive, or if dead, to his executor. If Mr. Reynolds, while living, had ceased to be administrator, and Mrs. Mathiot had been appointed administratrix de bonis non, he would nevertheless, have been entitled to recover the balance in question from the bank, and she would have been entitled to any balance appearing to be due by him upon a settlement of his account, as administrator, in the Orphans' Court, which court has exclusive jurisdiction to ascertain the amount of a decedent's property, and order its distribution among those entitled to it. The case is not altered in principle by the accident of Mr. Reynolds' death, and the substitution of his executor to his rights. The payment by the bank to the administratrix de bonis non is no defence to this action by the executor of the original administrator, and the learned court therefore erred in refusing to take off the non-suit entered upon that ground: Eyster's Estate, 5 Watts 133; Hamaker's Estate, 5 Watts 204; Bowman's Appeal, 12 Smith 166; Commonwealth v. Strohecker, 9 Watts 479; Stair v. York National Bank, 5 Smith 364; Whiteside v. Whiteside, 8 Harris 473; Black v. Black, 10 Casey 354; Shollenberger's Appeal, 9 Harris 341; Ashford v. Ewing, 1 Casey 213; Linsenbigler v. Gourley, 6 Smith 166; Mussleman's Appeal, 15 Smith 480; Hammett's Appeal, 2 Norris 392; Carrick v. Carrick, 8 C. E. Green 364.

W. M. Franklin and H. M. North, for the defendant in error.—The bank was debtor, not to J. L. Reynolds, but to "J. L. Reynolds, administrator of William Mathiot, deceased." J. L. Reynolds could not have drawn the balance as an individual, and it follows his executor cannot. The bank was bound to recognize only the administrator of William Mathiot's estate, or his duly constituted successor in the trust. In the absence of notice of dispute, the bank had no concern with the state of the account between the administrator and the estate. That was a matter to be determined by the court having jurisdiction of the account. If Mathiot's estate was indebted to its former administrator, his executor can pursue his claim as a creditor. The bank, having accepted the deposit as the property of the estate of William Mathiot, deceased, was bound to honor the demand of the legal representatives of that estate, and having done so, cannot be called upon to pay a second time to the individual estate of a former legal representative of the Mathiot estate: Act of February 24th 1834, § 31, Purd. Dig. 425, pl. 99; Brooks v. Smyser, 12 Wright 86; In re Montgomery, 3 Brewst. 306; Frazier v. Bank, 8 W. & S. 18; Stair v. York National Bank, 5 Smith 364; Com. v. Barnitz, 9 Watts 257; Com. v. Strohecker, Id. 479; Drenkle v. Sharman, Id. 485; Weld v. McClure, Id. 495; Carter v. Trueman, 7 Barr 315; Meiser v. Eckhart, 7 Harris 201; Little v. Walton, 11 Harris 164; United States Bank v. Macalester, 9 Barr 475; Jackson v. Bank of the U. S., 10 Barr 61; American Board of Commissioners' Appeal, 27 Conn. 344.

Mr. Justice TRUNKEY delivered the opinion of the court, October 1st 1883.

Administrators de bonis non have power to recover from their predecessor, or their legal representatives, all moneys, goods and assets remaining in their hands, due and belonging to the estate of the decedent; to prosecute actions upon promises made to such predecessors in their representative character; to sue forth and defend writs of error, or of scire facias, or of execution upon judgments obtained in the name of their predecessors, and to proceed with unexecuted executions for collection of such judgments: provided, that in any suit for the recovery of money, goods or assets, remaining in the hands of the predecessor, or his legal representative, brought before he shall have settled his final account, the court shall have power to stay proceeding therein, upon the defendant's filing such account in the register's office twenty days previous to the term next after the term to which the writ was returnable, until final settlement of said account, and the court in which the suit is pending, shall render judgment for the balance appearing by the account to be due to either party: Act of Feb. 24th 1834, P. L. 77. The object of the statute was to vest every administrator de bonis non with power to collect from his predecessor or his legal representative, all assets in his hands, or for which he was liable, that belonged to the estate: Commonwealth v. Barnitz, 9 Watts 252. Prior to its enactment, a administrator de bonis non could not recover the assets in the hands of his predecessor who had died; then the creditors, legatees or distributees of the estate were under the necessity of resorting to the personal representatives of the deceased executor or administrator to obtain satisfaction of their respective claims; but now they look to the successor who...