Fague's Estate
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 9, Feb. T., 1901, by James P. Miller, from decree of O. C. Lycoming Co., Sept. T., 1900, No. 20, dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report in Estate of Abner Fague, Deceased. Exceptions to report of William H. Spencer, Esq., auditor. James P. Miller claimed before the auditor the sum of $194.42 represented by a check which had been delivered to the administrators by the Union Tanning Company.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 9, Feb. T., 1901, by James P. Miller, from decree of O. C. Lycoming Co., Sept. T., 1900, No. 20, dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report in Estate of Abner Fague, Deceased. Exceptions to report of William H. Spencer, Esq., auditor. James P. Miller claimed before the auditor the sum of $194.42 represented by a check which had been delivered to the administrators by the Union Tanning Company. The check had been given in payment of certain oak bark which Miller claimed had been sold to him individually, and not to ■the Union Tanning Company. The auditor found the facts as to this…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The general rule is that only those who claim through the decedent, as creditors, legatees or next of kin, have any standing in a distribution proceeding in the orphans’ court. The appellant’s contention is that this general rule does not apply *640where the fund is wrongfully included in the account, either because, though, in the name of the decedent, it is really a trust, or because the title is in another person. Granting this, the prima facie presumption is that funds accounted for by an administrator as assets of the estate belong to the estate. Even in the absence of such legal…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Lawrence v. GodfreySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- DeHaven's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Pratt's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907