Brobst v. Bright

8 Watts 124
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 15, 1839·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The principle of this case is the same as the principle of Fetterman v. Murphy, which, except that the imaginary lien of a judgment against an executor or administrator was attempted to be put on a footing with the lien of a judgment against a debtor himself, was there sufficiently stated. No statute limits the lien of a judgment in favour of the heirs of the debtor; nor is there reason or necessity for it. After a reasonable time for the presentment of demands, it is proper to secure the heirs from secret debts, that they may improve their estates without risking the expenditure; but the propriety of it vanishes before a debt of record, and the plaintiff, here, was clearly entitled to execution of the land.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Brobst v. Bright, 8 Watts 124 (Pa. 1839).

8 Watts 124 (Brobst v. Bright) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kirk v. Van Horn
265 Pa. 549 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1920)
Colenburg v. Venter
33 A. 1046 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1896)
Konigmaker v. Brown
14 Pa. 269 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1850)