Steele's Administrator v. Steele

• Decision Date: 01 January 1854
• Citation: 25 Pa. 154
• Parties: Steele's Administrators versus Steele.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

25 Pa. 154

Steele's Administrators versus Steele.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Westmoreland county.

Cowan, for plaintiff in error.—The notes given by James, and the acceptance by his brothers, operated an extinguishment of the legacies: Miltenberger v. Schlegel, 7 Barr 242; Stewart's Appeal, 3 W. & Ser. 476; Dewalt v. Eldred, 4 W. & Ser. 422. The giving of a note by an administrator for a debt or legacy works a discharge: Geyer v. Smith, 1 Dall. 347; Commonwealth v. Shryock, 15 Ser. & R. 69; Durling v. Neigh, Id. 114.

Plaintiff should have brought his action within six years from the time he paid the legacy; as the note paid the legacy and more than plaintiff's share of it, he should have brought his action within six years from the time he gave it.

Foster, for defendant in error.—The tracts divided were of unequal quantity and of unequal value. James paid one-third of the whole charge, and his brothers are bound to contribute in proportion to the value of their respective tracts; which largely exceeded that of James.

The bonds were no more than a collateral security, and did not discharge the lien of the legacy — they were not payment. The question of discharge is one of intention; it will not be implied in the absence of proof, and the presumption is that the security was taken as collateral or as cumulative.

The notes were given under a mistake that plaintiff's land was equally bound. The will was not produced, and he acted under a misrepresentation of its contents, that each was to pay one-third of the charge.

The statute of limitations did not begin to run till after payment, which was made within six years from suit brought.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by LOWRIE, J.

We think the plaintiff is too late in seeking the correction of this mistake. And he cannot excuse his delay on the ground that he did not discover it till recently; for he might have discovered it the next day after it was made if he had attended to it, and he ought then to have insisted on its correction. Here is nine years' delay. But it is urged that he did not pay his share of the legacy until four or five years ago, and that he could not sue for a contribution until he had paid. Admit this, still the nonpayment was his own affair; he might delay payment as long as the legatees would let him, without perpetuating his right to correct the mistake made between him and others. The legacies seem to have fallen due in 1842, when...