Bradford v. Boudinot

3 F. Cas. 1128, 3 Wash. C. C. 122
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 15, 1811
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 3 F. Cas. 1128 (Bradford v. Boudinot) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bradford v. Boudinot, 3 F. Cas. 1128, 3 Wash. C. C. 122 (circtdpa 1811).

Opinion

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant, having received letters testamentary upon a will regularly proved before a competent tribunal, was authorized to perform all those acts, which an executor has the general power to perform, notwithstanding the pendency of a litigation respecting the validity of the will. The 18th section of -the act2 of this state of the 13th of April, 1791 [3 Laws (Pa.) 34],.sanctions all his acts pending the contest, unless where an administrator pendente lite is appointed; which, upon the refusal of the executor, to give security for the faithful execution of the will, the register is authorized to appoint. No such appointment was made in this case, nor does it appear that the defendant refused to give such security.

The defendant was not only authorized, but it was his duty, believing the first will to be the real last will and testament of William Bradford, (which he asserts in his answer he did,) to support the decision of the register in favour of that will; and he was entitled to the aid of the estate, to discharge all reasonable costs and expenses incurred on that account. Upon the same reason, he is entitled to the compensation usually allowed to an executor, for his pains and trouble in the management of the estate, whilst it remained in his hands. The allowance made by the commissioner for funeral expenses, is by no means deemed unreasonable. This is not a question, which in any respect affects creditors; and the whole sum allowed is but a trifle, when taken from the large amount of personal estate which is to be distributed. The exceptions, therefore, are overruled; it being understood that the parties have agreed to settle, amicably, the subjects included under the fourth and fifth exceptions.

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

Related

Notley v. Brown
16 Haw. 575 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1905)
Fillinger v. Conley
72 N.E. 597 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1904)
Shaffer v. Bacon
35 A.D. 248 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
In re Estate of Soulard
43 S.W. 617 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1897)
Sherman v. Leman
27 N.E. 57 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1891)
Hazard v. Engs
14 R.I. 5 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1882)
Delaplane v. Smith
38 Ohio St. (N.S.) 413 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1882)
Harrington v. Libby
6 Daly 259 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1875)
Kelly v. Davis
37 Miss. 76 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1859)
Executors of Andrews v. His Administrators
7 Ohio St. (N.S.) 143 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1857)
Comstock v. Hadlyme Ecclesiastical Society
8 Conn. 254 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1830)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 F. Cas. 1128, 3 Wash. C. C. 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradford-v-boudinot-circtdpa-1811.