Appeal of Ward

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Appeal of Ward

100 Pa. 289, 1882 Pa. LEXIS 59

DecidedApril 24, 1882

StatusPublished

This text of 100 Pa. 289 (Appeal of Ward) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Appeal of Ward, 100 Pa. 289, 1882 Pa. LEXIS 59 (Pa. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Chief Justice Siiarswood

delivered the opinion of the court, April 24th 1882.

That a surety who paj's the debt or from whose estate it is paid lias a right in equity to be subrogated to tlie security against his principal — is a doctrine so familiar and well settled as to need no citation of authorities to support it. James Ward, the decedent, was tlie surety of Daniel Sullivan in the judgment of the Anthracite Building and Loan Association. Tlie judgment was revived against the appellant his administrator. His estate was sold by the Orphans’ Court, and $301.25 of the proceeds was applied to-this judgment. Why should not his estate be subrogated to this judgment against Sullivan ? The learned judge in the court below, thought that the case of Blank’s Appeal, 3 Grant 192, ruled the question, and decided against allowing tlie subrogation. That case lias no application. It merely decides that an administrator, who pays a debt of an intestate lias no right of subrogation to the original creditor against the estate. The amount in this case was paid out of tlie estate of the intestate, under the legal liability of tlie estate, and not by the administrator, and the subrogation claimed is for the estate which the appellant represents, and not for himself personally.

Order discharging the rule for subrogation reversed, and now rule absolute.

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

Chief Justice Siiarswood

delivered the opinion of the court, April 24th 1882.

That a surety who paj's the debt or from whose estate it is paid lias a right in equity to be subrogated to tlie security against his principal — is a doctrine so familiar and well settled as to need no citation of authorities to support it. James Ward, the decedent, was tlie surety of Daniel Sullivan in the judgment of the Anthracite Building and Loan Association. Tlie judgment was revived against the appellant his administrator. His estate was sold by the Orphans’ Court, and $301.25 of the proceeds was applied to-this judgment. Why should not his estate be subrogated to this judgment against Sullivan ? The learned judge in the court below, thought that the case of Blank’s Appeal, 3 Grant 192, ruled the question, and decided against allowing tlie subrogation. That case lias no application. It merely decides that an administrator, who pays a debt of an intestate lias no right of subrogation to the original creditor against the estate. The amount in this case was paid out of tlie estate of the intestate, under the legal liability of tlie estate, and not by the administrator, and the subrogation claimed is for the estate which the appellant represents, and not for himself personally.

Order discharging the rule for subrogation reversed, and now rule absolute.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 Pa. 289, 1882 Pa. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/appeal-of-ward-pa-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack