Flory v. Becker
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
May 20.' — The question here wms as to the right of administrators to set off a debt due by the husband against the wife’s distributive share. The plaintiff brought a sci. fa. on an account settled by the administrators of her father’s estate in 1825, showing a balance due by them. This was composed of the proceeds of real estate sold for payment of debts.
Read the full summary
May 20.' — The question here wms as to the right of administrators to set off a debt due by the husband against the wife’s distributive share. The plaintiff brought a sci. fa. on an account settled by the administrators of her father’s estate in 1825, showing a balance due by them. This was composed of the proceeds of real estate sold for payment of debts. The husband of plaintiff wras at that time insolvent, and died in 1833. On the trial, defendants proved under objection by plaintiffj that on the settlement of their account they claimed and received a credit for $319 paid by them for John…
1Opinion of the CourtRogers, J.
— The intestate, Michael Baymiller, was surety for John Flory, the husband of Catharine Flory, in a note to Jacob Imenheiser, and on payment of the debt by the administrator, Flory became indebted to the estate to the amount paid. If, therefore, Flory had brought suit to recover his wife’s distributive share, the administrators would, according to the case of Yohe v. Barnitz, 1 Binn. 364, have had a defence; for Flory would notbe entitled to recover, except on the terms of paying the debt to the estate, particularly wdien he was insolvent. Whenever a husband seeks the aid of the court he will…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Yohe v. BarnetSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1808
- Fink v. HakeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837