Case ID: pa-super_76/html/0560-01.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

Geisler Estate.
    
      Lunatics — Maintenance—Duty of parent to support — Jurisdiction — Courts—Common pleas — Orphans’ court — Acts of June IS, 1886, P. L. 689; June 1,1915, P. L. 661.
    
    Under the Act of June 13, 1836, P. L. 639, the legal duty to support an indigent insane adult child is on the parent.
    Under the Act of June 1, 1915, P. L. 661, in the case of the indigent insane adult child, the liability is imposed in the interest of the Commonwealth on the parent, and jurisdiction to enforce such liability is given to the court of common pleas by section 4 of the act. Such jurisdiction is not exclusive of the right of the Commonwealth to enforce the liability of a deceased parent by appropriate proceedings against the decedent’s estate in the orphans’ court. In such case, the jurisdiction of the orphans’ court is not afíected by the fact that there has been no adjudication of the claim in the common pleas.
    A claim by the Commonwealth for the support of an insane dependent son was properly allowed, even although no claim was made against the decedent in her lifetime and no order secured in the court of common pleas.
    Argued April 27, 1921.
    Appeal, No. 137, April T., 1921, by Harriet "Murray, Jennie Hodil and Catharine Geisler, from decree of O. C. Allegheny County, May T., 1920, No-. 243, dismissing exceptions to adjudication in the case of Estate of Margaret Geisler.
    Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Trexler, Keller and Linn, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    
      Exceptions to adjudication.
    Tbe facts are stated in tbe following opinion of Mitchell, J., for tbe court in banc, sustaining exceptions:
    Tbe Commonwealtb of Pennsylvania and tbe Allegheny County Home bave presented claims against tbe decedent’s estate for tbe maintenance of decedent’s son, Robert Geisler, wbo bas been an inmate, excepting for short intervals, in tbe insane department of tbe Allegheny County Home since March, 1913. Robert Geisler bas never bad any estate or property from which be could be maintained. Tbe claim of tbe Commonwealtb is for $580.88, being for 290 3/7 weeks at $2 per week, and that, of tbe Allegheny County Home for $871.29 covering tbe same time at tbe rate of $3 per week.
    Tbe decedent at her death was past eighty-five years of age and for years up to tbe time of her death bad lived on a farm of a few acres owned by her. This farm was practically her entire estate and after her death was sold for $2,570. By her will tbe decedent directed this farm to be sold and tbe money realized therefrom to be equally divided among her three daughters, they to pay to her four sons, including Robert Geisler, $100 each, and to another son $50. Tbe balance for distribution as shown by tbe account of tbe executor is $2,274.15. -
    It is contended that these claimants bad not exacted payment for Robert Geisler’s maintenance at any time prior to decedent’s death, that tbe decedent was without means save tbe farm on which she lived, that tbe income therefrom did not maintain her, and that she was in part supported by some of her children; that considering tbe mother’s circumstances tbe court of common pleas would not in her lifetime bave made an order for tbe payment of maintenance for this son, and that no such order having been made or payment demanded, these claims can not now be allowed.
    We cannot agree to this contention. No application was made to tbe court of common pleas for an order of maintenance during tbe lifetime of tbe mother to compel her to pay for this son’s maintenance and we do not know what that conrt would have done had such a petition been filed. It may have been that the mother’s circumstances led the claimants to defer asking for a payment which might have pauperized her.
    - The Act of June 1,1915, P. L. 661, in the third section declares that the husband, wife, father, mother, child, or children of any person who is an inmate of any institution maintained in whole or in part by the Commonwealth, and who is legally able so to do, shall be liable to pay for the maintenance of any such person. In re Estate of Jacob F. Harnisch, 268 Pa. 128, it is decided that a claim of this nature may be allowed against a decedent’s estate without application having first been made to the court of common pleas for an order of maintenance as provided in section 4 of that act. Whatever may have been the decedent’s financial condition in her lifetime, the account here shows an estate more in value than the amount of these claims. [There is no reason why the heirs should take the estate and the liability or debt of the decedent be ignored.] (11)
    [It is urged as another reason for avoiding payment ■ that this son performed labor which had a value in excess of the cost of maintenance. The testimony as to this is too indefinite and meagre to allow of an estimate of the value of his services, even if it were proper to permit the claim to be set off by the value of these services.] (9) There is testimony that it is usual and customary to have the patients confined as this man was to do work if able, and it is reasonable to suppose that Robert Geis-ler may have been assigned tasks for his physical welfare. It also appears that some payment was made to Geisler for work done by him away from the home. [But how can the value of the labor of the son be set off against these claims against the mother’s estate? The son was about thirty-five years old when by regular proceedings he became an inmate of the Allegheny County Home, and the mother could have no claim for his services; she could not sue to recover tbe value of bis labor. There must be a mutuality of demand, or this set-off cannot be pleaded.] (10) Tbe mother or her estate cannot discharge her own obligation with money belonging to tbe son. See Hunter, Receiver, v. Henning, 259 Pa. 347. Even if a set-off could be maintained against tbe Commonwealth it cannot be taken advantage of by a third person.
    Tbe claim of tbe Commonwealth is in due form as required by tbe act and should be allowed.
    Tbe Allegheny County Home is described as a quasi public corporation. It is operated and controlled by tbe County of Allegheny and maintained by it together with such payments as are made to it by tbe Commonwealth under statute. Payments are also received from tbe patients when they are able to do so. Tbe law implies an obligation on tbe part of a lunatic or bis estate to reimburse those who have supplied bis necessities: Arnold’s Est., 253 Pa. 517. [If it be argued that tbe Act of June 1, 1915, applies only to tbe claims of tbe Commonwealth, this decedent’s estate is nevertheless liable to tbe Allegheny County Home for tbe maintenance of Robert Geisler under tbe Act of June 13,1836, P. L. 539, which provides that tbe father, grandfather, tbe mother and grandmother, child and grandchild of every poor person not able to work at their own charge, being sufficiently able, relieve and maintain such poor person. It seems clear that the estate of the mother of Robert Geis-ler is liable for the maintenance of the son in this home.] (12) The statute of limitations has been invoked against the claim of the home, and properly so, and for the amount not falling with the operation of this statute the claim should be allowed.
    In accordance with the foregoing views the estate of Margaret Geisler is liable for the claims presented, and distribution should be made to the claimants as herein set forth.
    
      And now, to wit, February 4,-1921, this matter came on to be beard, upon exceptions to tbe decree of tbe auditing judge, and was argued by counsel, and thereupon, upon consideration thereof, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that tbe exceptions be sustained, and tbe decreé of distribution made in this case on November 13, 1920, be amended by striking out so much thereof as distributes, viz:
    To Com. of Penna. Trans. Inb. Tax,.f 42.24
    Catherine Geisler, 1/3 bal., . 504.98
    Harriet Murray, 1/3 bal., ... 504.98
    Jennie Hodil, 1/3 bal., . 504.99
    Total, .,.•.fl,557.19
    And tbe following is substituted therefor, viz:
    To Com. of Pa., claim for support, etc.,.$580.88
    To Allegheny County Hospital for tbe Insane, claim for support, etc.,. 832.29
    To Com. of Pa. Transf. Inb. Tax,. 13.20
    To Catherine- Geisler, 1/3 bal., . 43.60
    To Harriet Murray, 1/3 bal.,. 43.61
    To Jennie Hodil, 1/3 bal., ...... 43.61
    Total, .$1,557.19
    And with this modification tbe decree is affirmed.
    
      Error assigned was tbe decree of tbe court.
    
      John L. High, and with him George H. Qurnll and Mayer Snider man, for appellants.
    
      Thomas F. Garrahan, and with him Samuel M. Kerr and Harry W. McIntosh, for appellee.
    July 14, 1921:
   Per Curiam,

These three appeals were argued together, tbe question involved being tbe same in each, and are so ably considered in the opinion filed by tbe orphans’ court in banc in disposing of tbe exceptions filed to tbe order of tbe auditing judge, that tbe decree and distribution made by tbe court in banc is affirmed.