Amerling's Estate

Philadelphia County Orphans' Court

Amerling's Estate

13 Pa. D. & C. 582, 1930 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 235

CourtPennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County

DecidedApril 25, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Pa. D. & C. 582 (Amerling's Estate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amerling's Estate, 13 Pa. D. & C. 582, 1930 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 235 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Van Dusen, J.,

— The petitioner’s claim for compensation rests on a written agreement from all the parties in interest. Those who get absolute interests have paid him; but part of the estate is held in trust, and the trustees will not pay, and the beneficiaries (though they signed the agreement) will give no further authority to pay.

The petitioner’s remedy is against the people who promised to pay him. Claims against distributees, although they relate to the fund for distribution, are not to be presented against the fund, but are personal claims against the persons who contracted them. The petitioner, therefore, was right in his opinion at the time of the audit that he could not then present his claims, and he is not entitled to any opportunity to do so by way of review.

The petition is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Van Dusen, J.,

— The petitioner’s claim for compensation rests on a written agreement from all the parties in interest. Those who get absolute interests have paid him; but part of the estate is held in trust, and the trustees will not pay, and the beneficiaries (though they signed the agreement) will give no further authority to pay.

The petitioner’s remedy is against the people who promised to pay him. Claims against distributees, although they relate to the fund for distribution, are not to be presented against the fund, but are personal claims against the persons who contracted them. The petitioner, therefore, was right in his opinion at the time of the audit that he could not then present his claims, and he is not entitled to any opportunity to do so by way of review.

The petition is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Pa. D. & C. 582, 1930 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amerlings-estate-paorphctphilad-1930.