Gilfillen's Estate
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 36, July T., 1895, by H. Jennie Gilfillen, from decree of O. C. Perry Co., Nov. T., 1894, No. 22, discharging rule to show cause why certain money should not be paid to H. Jennie Gilfillen. Rule on executors of Lewis Gilfillen to show cause why they should not pay to Jennie Gilfillen the sum of $1,094.36, with interest from Dec. 28, 1875, as her distributive share of the estate of her father, James L. Gilfillen, deceased.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 36, July T., 1895, by H. Jennie Gilfillen, from decree of O. C. Perry Co., Nov. T., 1894, No. 22, discharging rule to show cause why certain money should not be paid to H. Jennie Gilfillen. Rule on executors of Lewis Gilfillen to show cause why they should not pay to Jennie Gilfillen the sum of $1,094.36, with interest from Dec. 28, 1875, as her distributive share of the estate of her father, James L. Gilfillen, deceased. From the record it appeared that James L. Gilfillen died intestate, Oct. 29,1873, survived only by a minor child, Jennie, and a widow. After ihe death of her…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Green,
In this proceeding it is attempted, by means of a rule to show cause, to obtain a decree for the payment of money against the estate of Lewis Gilfillen, deceased. If the decedent owed money to the appellant the form of the proceeding would not be objectionable. But if no money is owing by the decedent to the appellant, neither law nor equity could tolerate the decree sought for. The basis of the contention is that the decedent, being the administrator of the estate of the appellant’s father, had in his hands at the settlement of his account as administrator, a sum…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hipp v. BabinSupreme Court of the United States · 1857
- Van Epps v. Van DeusenNew York Court of Chancery · 1833
- Davis v. . CrandallNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Shollenberger's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853
- Eyster's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1851
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Trook v. Lafayette Bank and Trust Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1991
- Daniels v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Bouchat v. UphoffCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1974
- Calnan v. SavidgeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1904
- McAuliffe v. CarlsonDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1975
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.