Wood v. Davidson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
On the return of a writ-of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming county, it appeared that William. Wood brought an action of indebitatus assumpsit for money- had and received against Arthur Davidson and Thomas Wood, administrators pendente lite, of Dr. Thomas Wood.
Read the full summary
On the return of a writ-of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming county, it appeared that William. Wood brought an action of indebitatus assumpsit for money- had and received against Arthur Davidson and Thomas Wood, administrators pendente lite, of Dr. Thomas Wood. The case, notwithstanding-the form of the declaration, was treated as an action for a legacy, and no refunding bond having been tendered or filed before the action was brought, the court below, on the trial, ruled that'“the suit could not be sustained without the plaintiff’s tendering or -filing a refunding bond, as the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
It is enacted in the fourth section of the act of the 21st of March, 1112, that no suit shall be maintained for a legacy until reasonable demand made of the executor or administrator, and an offer made and filed of. a refunding bond, .with two’‘sufficient sureties, with condition, that if any part, or the whole thereofshall, at any time after, appear to be;wanting to discharge any debt, or debts, legacy, or legacies, which the executors, &c. shall not have other assets to pay, then he, the said legatee, will return his legacy, or such part…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Whitesides v. RussellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
- Logan v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1845