Waters v. Margerum
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
at Philadelphia. Error to the Court of Common Pléas of Columbia county: To October Term 1868. This was an action of ejectment for lot No. 8 in the town of Catawissa, commenced September 15th 1866, by Samuel Waters against C. E. Margerum. The questions in this ejectment arose under the will and codicil of George ICnoppenberger, both dated April 26th 1818, and proved March 12th 1819. Amongst other things he devised as follows, viz.:— , “ Secondly.
Read the full summary
at Philadelphia. Error to the Court of Common Pléas of Columbia county: To October Term 1868. This was an action of ejectment for lot No. 8 in the town of Catawissa, commenced September 15th 1866, by Samuel Waters against C. E. Margerum. The questions in this ejectment arose under the will and codicil of George ICnoppenberger, both dated April 26th 1818, and proved March 12th 1819. Amongst other things he devised as follows, viz.:— , “ Secondly. Whereas I now hold an indenture of mortgage duly executed by Henry Eeder of Catawissa township, on a certain house and lot situate on the corner of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, by
Sharswood, J.
— The deed by George K. AVaters, administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of George Knoppenberger, unquestionably conveyed no title to the plaintiff. The power to sell given by the will to the executors was not for the payment of debts, but for distribution among legatees and for investment. Ross v. Barclay, 6 Harris 183, decides that such an administrator, under the 67th section of the Act of February 24th 1884, Pamph. L. 86, may execute a power to sell in order to bring the land into a course of administration, but not to carry…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Elliott v. PearsollSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
3Cited by2 opinions
- Esser v. ChimelCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1943
- Doe v. RoeSupreme Court of Delaware · 1916