Musselman v. Eshleman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Lancaster. In 1819 L. Eshleman died, seised of the land in question. The defendant, as his administrator, settled his accounts and procured an order, by the Orphans’ Court, for the sale of the land, to pay debts. In 1824 the sale was made, at a price which was shown to have been a fair one. The defendant was, in fact, the purchaser.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Lancaster. In 1819 L. Eshleman died, seised of the land in question. The defendant, as his administrator, settled his accounts and procured an order, by the Orphans’ Court, for the sale of the land, to pay debts. In 1824 the sale was made, at a price which was shown to have been a fair one. The defendant was, in fact, the purchaser. From that time he was in possession, until this ejectment by the children of his intestate, which was brought in 1848. The youngest child attained his majority in 1837. Lewis, P. J., directed a verdict for defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnside, J.
In the case of Painter v. Henderson, 7 Barr, 50, it is declared that the law has wisely forbidden a trustee,- executor, or administrator to act in the double capacity of seller and buyer. Such a transaction is a legal fraud. But a deed in such a case is not absolutely void; and, therefore, no party to *395the deed, or others claiming under him, are allowed to repudiate it. Neither can strangers avail themselves of such an objection. It is voidable only by the cestui que trust and his heirs. Nor can the administrator purchase by a third person-, with a view of having the conveyance afterwards made…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Church v. WintonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Herbert v. Northern Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921