Masterson v. Masterson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
On a writ of error to the court of Common Pleas of Montgomery county, it appeared that this suit was brought in that court by the defendant in-error, Elizabeth Masterson, against the plaintiffs in error, John Masterson and Christopher Tenant, executors of Henry Masterson deceased. • The declaration contained two counts, the first of which set forth that Henry Masterson on the Gth of November 1818, made his will, by which among other things he bequeathed to his wife,…
Read the full summary
On a writ of error to the court of Common Pleas of Montgomery county, it appeared that this suit was brought in that court by the defendant in-error, Elizabeth Masterson, against the plaintiffs in error, John Masterson and Christopher Tenant, executors of Henry Masterson deceased. • The declaration contained two counts, the first of which set forth that Henry Masterson on the Gth of November 1818, made his will, by which among other things he bequeathed to his wife, Elizabeth (the plaintiff below) the interest of the money arising out of his estate for the term of five years after his…
1Per curiam
It has been determined that an action for a legacy may be brought against an executor, in a representative capacity, as in Foulk v. Brown, 2 Watts, 209, determined at the last term for Harrisburg, which was an action of debt in the detinet. In other respects its features were less distinct, but the question being open to construction, was decided in a way best calculated to preserve the constitutional franchise free from impediment. Can the action before us be so considered ? The foundatiori of it is the defendant’s promise, not the will. But as executors cannot promise or covenant as such,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Foulk v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
3Cited by2 opinions
- Pugh v. OttenkirkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
- Geddis v. IrvineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847