Walworth v. Abel

• Decision Date: 17 October 1866
• Citation: 52 Pa. 370
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Parties: Walworth <I>versus</I> Abel.

52 Pa. 370

Walworth versus Abel.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 17, 1866.

ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna county.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

R. B. Little, for plaintiff in error.—An administrator's interest is but a qualified one: Toller on Ex'rs. 133; Gordon on Decedents 94. The widow and next of kin could agree on a distribution different from that provided by law, and being a "family settlement," and there being no creditors, it would be sustained: Calhoun v. Hays, 8 W. & S. 132; Barrington v. Clarke, 2 P. & W. 123; McMahon v. McMahon, 1 Harris 380; Lee v. Gibbons, 14 S. & R. 105.

If Capron had any property in the cattle, trover against him would not lie by Torrey or his representative: Trout v. Kennedy, 11 Wright 387. Trover will not lie, unless the plaintiff has the right of possession at the time of the alleged conversion: 1 Chit. Pl. 149; Ward v. Taylor, 1 Barr 240; Lewis v. Carsaw, 3 Harris 31, 34; Fitler v. Shotwell, 7 W. & S. 14.

Bentley, Fitch & Bentley, for defendant in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered, October 17th 1866, by THOMPSON, J.

It is material to bear in mind in this case, that the widow and heirs are not seeking to recover property of the estate without letters of administration. Ordinarily this cannot be done. The proposed testimony raises a very different question, viz.: that the cattle, for which this suit was brought, were obtained by the defendant in exchange for a horse; the interest of the estate in the cattle having been purchased from the widow and heirs by his vendor, there being no debts whatever against the estate, and no administration. This it is contended conferred title to the cattle upon him, which could not be disturbed unless debts appeared.

No doubt the personal estate of a decedent vests in the administrator, but in trust for creditors and heirs or legatees. The mere legal estate passes to the administrator, the equitable descends upon the parties entitled to distribution. If there be no creditors the heirs have a complete equity in the property, and if they choose, instead of taking letters of administration, to distribute it by arrangement made and executed amongst themselves, where is the principle which forbids it?

The parties to such an arrangement executed would be for ever equitably estopped from disturbing it, as amongst themselves, upon the most familiar principles of justice. And why shall the arrangement be broken up by a mere intermeddler? Family arrangements are favourites of the law, and when fairly made are never allowed to be disturbed by the parties, or any other for them. If there be no creditors in this case, the recovery of the value of the cattle would be only for the purpose of distribution among the heirs; but this they have done themselves, by an appropriation of the value already — and thus is accomplished what cannot be done over again without breaking up the arrangement, and without manifest injustice to the defendant. Taking the offer as true, as we must in this stage of the case, we think the testimony should have been received. It was a good defence to the claim of the administrator. If there were no debts at the time the letters were granted, and no question of distribution requiring...