Case ID: sadler_7/html/0044-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Cukiam :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Allwein, Plff. in Err., v. John F. Werntz et al., Exrs.
    In an action on a refunding bond, the condition of which was to refund so much of a legacy paid by the executors as should be necessary to pay any debt or demand against the estate, hold, that claims of legatees are demands against the estate in the hands of the executors.
    In such action the final account of the executors and the report of the auditor making the distribution of the balance in the executors’ hands are competent evidence to prove a breach of the bond.
    (Argued May 6, 1887.
    Decided May 23, 1887.)
    January Term,
    No. 377,
    
    E. D., before Meboub, Ch. J., GobdoN, TbuNeey, Stebbett, GbeeN, and Claek, JJ.
    Error to the Common Pleas of Lebanon County to review a judg-meht on a verdict directed for plaintiffs in an action on a bond.
    Affirmed.,
    This action was brought by the executors of George E. Mars against William Allwein, to recover on a refunding bond the difference between the amount of a legacy paid to one Polly All-wein and the amount distributed to her by the orphans’ court. The condition of the bond appears from the charge of the court to the jury, given beíow.
    On the trial plaintiffs, to prove their case, offered in evidence the will of the testator, a certified copy of the plaintiffs’ account as executors, confirmed by the orphans’ court, and the report of the auditor making distribution of the balance in tbe bands of tbe executors, and tbe filing and confirmation of tbe same.
    Tbe account and auditor’s report were objected to by defendant, upon tbe ground that tbe evidence was incompetent and irrelevant to affect tbe issue. Tbe court overruled tbe objection in these words:
    “In our opinion tbe evidence is competent to prove a breach of this bond, and tbe objections are overruled and the evidence admitted. This ruling applies to tbe account aod tbe report together, and not separate.”
    Further facts appear from tbe charge of tbe court to tbe jury, as follows:
    This suit is brought upon a refunding bond given by tbe defendant, William Allwein, to tbe executors of George F. Mars. Tbe action is brought to recover the difference between tbe sum paid Polly Allwein, who was a legatee under the will of George Mars, in January, 1888, and tbe amount subsequently distributed to her by tbe orphans’ court of Schuylkill county in February, I think, 1884. It is admitted that the settlement then made was a full and complete settlement of tbe estate of George F. Mars, and therefore it follows that the amount thus decreed to her by tbe orphans’ court was tbe full amount to which she was entitled under tbe will. She received $2,950 in January, 1883, and tbe claim is made now that under tbe following condition (which I will read to you) there is an obligation to pay back tbe difference between tbe amount actually received and tbe amount which she ought properly to have received. Tbe condition is this:
    “Now tbe condition of this obligation is such that if any part of this sum so paid to the said Polly Allwein shall at any time appear to be wanting to discharge any debt or demand against tbe estate of said deceased which tbe said executors shall not have other assets to pay, then and in such case, if tbe said William Allwein, bis heirs, executors or administrators shall and do return tbe said legacy, or said sum or such part thereof as shall be necessary for tbe payment of the said debt or demand and tbe cost and charges attending tbe recovery of tbe same, then this obligation shall be void.”
    We bold in this case that tbe evidence produced before us is competent to establish that a portion of this bond is needed to discharge a debt or demand against the estate of said deceased, and (at least in the absence of any other evidence contradicting the account and the auditor’s report taken together) that the plaintiffs have made out a good case.
    [We do not now decide that the papers are conclusive evidence upon that subject; but there is no other evidence in the ease, except these papers; and upon them we say your verdict, must be in favor of the plaintiffs, for the difference named, with interest from the time demand was made, which appears to have-been August 11, 1885.] The amount as calculated is $383.80,. —$358.70, and interest $25.10.
    You will render a verdict for the plaintiffs for that amount.
    Exception noted for the defendant.
    Verdict and judgment accordingly.
    The assignments of error specified the action of the court in-admitting in evidence the account of the executors, the auditor’s, report, and the portions of the charge inclosed in brackets.
    
      Josiah Funds & Son for plaintiff in error.
    
      Grant Weidman for defendants in error.
   Pee Cukiam :

Language more specific might have been used than that contained in the condition of the bond; yet we think the purpose and extent of its protective power do not admit of reasonable-doubt. . It was given to the executors for their protection and to enable them to properly distribute the fund which they held in trust for the benefit of all persons entitled to any portion thereof. The legatees are entitled to share therein. Their-claims are demands against the estate of the decedent, in the: hands of the executors.

Judgment affirmed.