Case ID: walker_4/html/0381-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALBRIGHT vs. BROWN.
    The fact that claims were presented before an auditor of an insolvent estate and a small sum was awarded to them constitutes no bar to the recovery of a judgment for the unpaid portion of the claim.
    Error to Common Pleas of Union County. No. 22, July Term, 1884.
    These were two actions of assumpsit brought by R. F. Brown and F. A. Lonehower against Amelia A1 right, executrix of L. F. Albright, deceased. The facts appear in the opinion of the Court, sustaining a demurrer to a special plea, per
    Buci-ier, P. J.
    These two cases are controlled by the same principles. The plaintiffs respectively seek to recover the amount of certain notes drawn by the testator in his lifetime in their favor. All the pleas have been withdrawn, save the plea of former recovery, and to this the plaintiffs have respectively demurred.
    The plea of former recovery stripped of all verbiage amounts to this: The executrix defendant alleges that these .actions cannot be maintained because the plaintiffs, respectively, appeared before the auditor appointed by the Orphans’ Court to make distribution of the fund in her hands as executrix, as per her account duly confirmed, and claimed distri- ■ bution of the fund upon the notes here, and that the auditor allowed the full amount of the claims to be due and owing, ■and appropriated a pro rata distribution to them respectively, the fund being inadequate to discharge the claims in full.
    It is an undeniable principle of the law that no man shall “be vexed twice for the same cause of action. In the proceedings before the auditor it was adjudged that the debts sought to be recovered here were due and owing, and a percentage of the fund in hand was appropriated to their discharge. This •decree is conclusive that the debt is valid until reversed, and it is clear that it cannot be reversed in a collateral proceeding. The cases, Otterson vs. Middleton, 102 Pa., 78; Otterson vs. Gallagher, 7 Norris, 355; Dundas’ Estate, 23 Smith, 474; Kitteru’s Estate, 5 Harris, 416, and kindred cases define the powers of the Orphans’ Court, and the conclusiveness of its decrees. It is the only Court that can distribute a decedent’s •estate or execute his will. Its decrees unappealed from are "final; 7 Norris, 355; Lex’s Appeal, 1 Out., 289, where the parties have appeared, because it is a distribution; [but it is nowhere held that, because a creditor has received a dividend or pro rata on an undisputed claim in the Orphans’ Court, that he may not sue in the Common Pleas to obtain a judgment, and enable him to reach the real estate of the decedent. It ’ may sometimes be necessary to follow up real estate of the decedent in and out of the State. Had the claims been contested and defeated in the Orphans’ Court, then that finding would have been conclusive; but where it was admitted, there is no reason why the creditor should not perpetuate his claims by judgment; 1 Out., 189. We hold, then, that the remedy in the Common Pleas is concurrent, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment, and nothing short of satisfaction will defeat their right to the same.
    And now, Sept. 17th, A. D. 1883, the demurrer is sustained, and it is ordered that judgment be entered in No. 32, Dec. T., 1881, in favor of the plaintiff for the sum claimed in the declaration, with interest, less a credit of $25.33 as of July 27, A. D. 1882; and that a judgment be entered in No. 33, Dec. T., 1881, for the sum claimed in the declaration, with interest, less a credit of $14.51 as of July 27th, A. D. 1882; the respective amounts to be liquidated by the Prothonotary.]
    The Executrix then took a writ of error, complaining dfthe •entry of the judgments.
    
      Messrs. Wolfe & Leiser, for plaintiff in error,
    cited Marsh vs. Pier, 4 R , 285; Kilheffer vs. Herr, 17 S. & R, 319; Darlington vs. Gray, 5 Wh., 486; Souter vs. Baymore, 7 Pa., 415; Cleveland R. R. Co., vs. Erie, 27 Pa., 380; Brenner vs. Moyer, 98 Pa., 274; Kittera’s Estate, 17 Pa., 416; Lex’s Appeal; 97 Pa., 289; Whiteside vs. Whiteside, 20 Pa., 473; Sholenberger’s Appeal, 21 Pa., 337; Dundas’s Appeal, 73 Pa., 479; Otterson vs. Gallagher, 88 Pa., 355; Hammett’s Appeal, 83 Pa., 392; McGettrick’s Appeal, 98 Pa., 9; Painter vs. Henderson, 7 Pa., 48; Sergeant vs. Ewing, 30 Pa., 81.
    
      Messrs. Dill & Beale, contra,
    
    cited Fidelity Insurance Co.’s Appeal, 99 Pa., 459; Hammett’s Appeal, 83 Pa., 392.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the Common Pleas on May 19, 1884, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam.

These cases were argued together. The fact that these •claims were presented before an auditor, found to be correct, and a small sum awarded to them on a distribution, constitutes no legal bar to a recovery for the unpaid portion in a court of law. That hearing is not such an adjudication as to bar the right of the claimant to collect the residue of his claim out of other property.

Judgment in each case affirmed.