Stumpf's Appeal
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
No. 442 January Term, 1887, Sup. Ct. On October 12,1880, Dr. Ludwig Elentje was the defendant in two pending actions instituted by Adelaide Stumpf ; one a criminal prosecution in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Carbon county for fornication and bastardy; the other an action for breach of promise to marry, in the Court of Common Pleas.
Read the full summary
No. 442 January Term, 1887, Sup. Ct. On October 12,1880, Dr. Ludwig Elentje was the defendant in two pending actions instituted by Adelaide Stumpf ; one a criminal prosecution in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Carbon county for fornication and bastardy; the other an action for breach of promise to marry, in the Court of Common Pleas. On that date the following agreement was executed: This agreement made this 12th day of October A. d., 1880, between Adelaide Stumpf, of the one part, and Ludwig Flentje, of the other part, witnesseth: Whereas, the said Adelaide Stumpf has brought a prosecution…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion,
Mr. Justice Sterrett :
The controlling question in this case, is whether the executory contract of October 12, 1880, between the testator, Ludwig Flentje, and Adelaide Stumpf, the appellant, was strictly personal to the former and ceased to be operative when he died, or whether it continued in full force and is binding on his executors.
The general rule is that, to the extent of the assets that come to their hands, the personal representatives of a decedent are responsible on all his contracts, whether named therein or not, and whether the breach occurs in his lifetime or after-wards :…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Huffman v. HuffmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Fessman EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- In Re Estate of BullottaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Stone v. Gulf American Fire and Cas. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1989
- Young v. GongawareSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.