Steele's Administrator v. Steele

• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Lowrie
• Citation: Steele's Administrator v. Steele, 25 Pa. 154 (Pa. 1854)
• Decision Date: 01 January 1854
• Parties: Steele's Administrators versus Steele.

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...