Case ID: binn_1/html/0221-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Tilghman C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Scott administrator of Patterson against Ramsay.
    Pittsburg, Friday, September 18th.
    Debts due by a deceased person take rank according to their quality at the time of his death . Judgments obtained before a justice of the peace, when filed in the Common Pleas or made known to the administrators, must be paid pro rata with Judgments in courts of record.
    IN ERRoR.
    IN this cause, which was brought up from the Common Pleas of Washington county by writ of error, a case was stated for the opinion of the court, which was in substance as follows: ~ohn Patterson died intestate, possessed of personal pro- perty, and seised in fee of real estate. At the time of his death several persons had obtained judgments against him before jus- tices of the peace. After his death several creditors obtained judgments against his administrator on debts by simple con- tract. The personal estate being insufficient, the real estate was sold by order of the Orphan's Court, and after the sale, some of the judgments obtained before justices of tile peace `were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, and others were not filed. The questions for this court were two: -
    1. Whether the simple contract creditors (of whom the de- fendant in error was one) who obtained judgment against the administrator, were to be considered in any respect as judgment creditors of the intestate, and as such entitled to any preference in the payments to be made by the administrator dut of the per- sonal assets, or the proceeds of the real estate.
    2. Whether the creditors who obtained judgment before jus~ tices of peace in the intestate's life, were to be considered as judgment creditors within the 14th section of the act of 19th April 1794; and whether any distin~ction was to be made be.. tween those whose judgments were filed, and those whose judg~. ments were not filed, in the office of the Common Pleas.
    Addison for the plaintiff in error.
    Campbell for the defendant in error.
   Tilghman C. J.

delivered the court's opinion. The

first question has been determined by this court in the case of Wootering v. The executors of Stewart. (December term 1799.) It was there decided on argument and full considera tion that the order of payment was to be according to the nature of the debt at the time of the testator’s decease; and couscquently a simple contract creditor obtained no preference by obtaining judgment against the executors.

It has been contended on the second point, that the'term judgments, in the act of Assembly 19th April 1794 is to be restrained to judgments in a court of record. But it appears to the court that the meaning of the word and the intent of the legislature both call for a more liberal construction. In the same session an act was passed by which the jurisdiction of justices of the peace was extended to twenty pounds, and their judgments, when recorded in the office of the prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas, were “ to have the same effect as judg- “ ments obtained in the Court of Common Pleas.” Of course they become-a lien on lands; and it would be most extraordinary if the legislature could intend to make them a lien on lands, and yet be of no consideration with respect to personal assets. We are therefore of opinion that these judgments when filed in the prothonotary’s office, or when made known to the administrator before he has paid away the estate, are to be on a footing with judgments in courts of record. But as great inconvenience might ensue if administrators were obliged at their peril to take notice of such judgments, the court desire it to be understood, that they give no opinion whether the administrator would be guilty of a devastavit if he paid the estate to creditors of an inferior nature, before he received notice of judgments rendered by justices of the peace, and not filed.