Romig v. Erdman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. This was a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. Jacob Erdman brought an action in that Court against John Romig ; in which a case was stated for the opinion of the Court, setting forth the following facts: . On the 17th of April, 1797, Adam Romig made his last will and testament, which was proved on the 2d of October, 1798, and contained, among other provisions, the following: “ And I do hereby order and direct that my executors hereinafter…
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. This was a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. Jacob Erdman brought an action in that Court against John Romig ; in which a case was stated for the opinion of the Court, setting forth the following facts: . On the 17th of April, 1797, Adam Romig made his last will and testament, which was proved on the 2d of October, 1798, and contained, among other provisions, the following: “ And I do hereby order and direct that my executors hereinafter to be mentioned, do take and set apart out of and from my estate the sum of three hundred pounds, lawful money of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the. Court was delivered by
Sergeant, J.
The principle determined in Darrach's Executors v. Hay, and in Potter v. Burd, (4 Watts, 15,) that an executor or administrator cannot purchase in a claim against the estate he represents, and set it off in 'a suit against him for a claim upon his-•testator Or intestate, is certainly a correct one; but the present case-does not seem to be one in which it is applicable. The executor here has not purchased in any outstanding claim by a third person against the estate, which he now attempts to set off against the legacy demanded. The ground…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Krause v. BeitelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1831
- Potter v. BurdSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
- Baughman ex rel. Over v. DivlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1800