Case ID: whart_3/html/0441-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pur Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

* [Philadelphia, April 9, 1838.]
    SAULNIER’S ESTATE.
    APPEAL.
    1. A husband has no peculiar right to administer to his wife’s separate estate.
    2. Whore a married woman having a separate estate, died in 1830, and administration was granted to A., and on his death, in 1835, administration de bonis non was granted to B., a creditor, it was held, that the Orphans’ Court were not bound to revoke tbe letters of administration on the application of the appointee of the surviving husband.
    This was an appeal from a decree of the Orphans’ Court of Montgomery county, in the matter of the administration of the goods of Sarah Saulnier, deceased.
    On the 17th day of August, 1836, Thomas Humphreys, guardian and next friend of John W. Saulnier, a minor, who was the son of John B. Saulnier and Sarah his wife, presented a petition to the Orphans’ Court at Montgomery County, setting forth, that James Anderson, of Lower Merion township, in Montgomery county had applied to-and surreptitiously obtained, from the register of wills in the said county, letters of administration of the estate of the said Sarah Saulnier, now deceased, to which he was not entitled, in the place of George Wilson, deceased; that the said James Anderson was plaintiff in two different suits now pending in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, against the estate of the said Sarah Saulnier; and the petitioner believed, that the said James Anderson took out the said letters of administration from sinister motives, for the purpose of having some control over the actions, and not for the benefit of the minor child ; and was therefore an improper person to have charge of the said estate; that Sarah Saulnier, at the time of her death, was a married woman ; that her husband, John B. Saulnier, the petitioner believed to be in full life; and praying a citation to James Anderson to appear before the Court on the 14th of November, 1836, to show cause why the said letters of administration should not be revoked. The Court awarded the citation accordingly.
    The answer of James Anderson stated, that it was true, that he obtained from the register, the letters of administration to the estate of “ the widow, Sarah Saulnier,” deceased, in the place of George Wilson, deceased; and that they were granted by the register with *a full knowledge of the relations and kindred of the said Sarah, and of the circumstances of her estate, and also with the full knowledge and approbation of Thomas Read, the guardian of the estate of John W. Saulnier, a minor, and the only child of the said Sarah, to whom her whole estate, under the intestate laws of this commonwealth, will go; and that it was therefore untrue, that the said letters of administration were “surreptitiously obtained,” as was in the petition alleged; nor was it true, that they were taken out by the respondent with an improper and sinister motive, or for the purpose of having any control over the actions depending in the Supreme Court, as in the petition was alleged; nor had he interfered with the same. That one of the said actions was brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, to August term, 1831, against George Wilson, administrator of the said Sarah Saulnier, upon his administration bond, and not against her estate; in which there was a trial, and a verdict for the commonwealth, for the penalty of the bond, on the 15th of October, 1833, without an objection or exception by the defendant, which was removed by him to the Supreme Court, in April, 1834. The other was brought by the respondent in the same Court, against the same defendant, to November term, 1831, for money lent to Sarah Saulnier, which her said administrator refused to pay; in which there was a verdict for the plaintiff for a small sum, on November 14, 1834, and which was removed to the Supreme Court by the defendant, in January, 1835. That since their removal, the said George Wilson had not to the knowledge of this respondent, taken any steps to have either case determined; and the respondent believed he had abandonpd the prosecution of the writs of error, before his death. That the respondent was perfectly willing that, so far as the estate of the said Sarah Saulnier was concerned, in the case in which he was interested, it should be controlled and managed by the said guardian, in such manner as he should think best for the said estate, and the interest of his ward. That it was not known to the respondent, that the husband of the said Sarah was in full life. He removed from these parts, to South America, as is believed, upwards of ten years ago ; since when, he had never returned. That she died about the year 1830, and letters of administration of her estate were granted to the said George Wilson, so long as 1831, which must have been known to her husband if living; in which, however, he had never interfered in any manner whatever; he having, by a marriage settlement between him and the said Sarah, prohibited himself from any interference with her estate, and secured the same to her children. That at the time the said letters of administration were granted to the respondent, the relations and kindred of the said Sarah in the nearest degree to her, (except her minor son,) were one brother, William Wilson, (who then was, and still is, notoriously and entirely incompetent and unfit for such a trust,) and two sisters, namely, *Ann Humphreys, wife of the said Thomas and wife of the respondent.
    The answer-then proceeded to state various reasons why, in the opinion of the respondent, the petitioner was not a suitable person to act as administrator.
    Annexed to the answer was a certificate signed by Thomas Read, guardian of the estate of John W. Saulnier, minor child of Sarah Saulnier, deceased, stating his approval of James Anderson’s appointment, and of his conduct in the office.
    The replication of Thomas Humphreys denied that the letters of administration were granted to the respondent with the knowledge of the relations and kindred of Sarah Saulnier, and averred that they disapproved of the same, and were desirous that the letters of administration should be vacated. The repliant denied that Thomas Read had any control of the estate of John W. Saulnier, or of his mother, and alleged, that Sarah Saulnier left no debts due by her, except that to James Anderson, which was disputed, and still pending in the Supremo Court; and that James Anderson is both plaintiff and defendant therein, by means of the said letters of administration. The replication then proceeded to deny the circumstances set forth in the answer relating to the acts of the repliant.
    Certain documents appear to have been annexed to the replication, which showed that John Saulnier, the husband of Sarah Saulnier, was living at Vera Cruz in July, 1837; and that he disapproved of James Anderson being administrator, and appointed Thomas Humphreys his representative for the purpose, and guardian for the son, &c.
    On the 10th of October, 1837, the Orphans’ Court dismissed the petition.
    From this decree the petitioner appealed to this Court.
    Mr. Hare, (with whom was Mr. Kittera,) for .the plaintiff in error,
    cited Elhnaker’s Estate, (4 Watts, 34).
    The Court declined hearing Mr. Sterigere and Mr. Ereedly, who were for the appellee.
   Pur Curiam.

A husband has no peculiar right to administration of his wife’s separate estate; and the interference of the husband here is to be disregarded. Even had he been entitled, his negligence in the assertion of his right would be a waiver of it; and he could not now prevent it from devolving on another. A wife’s creditors are not bound to wait forever. There is no personal objection to the appellee; and we cannot say the Orphans’ Court erred in refusing to repeal the letters of administration.

Decree affirmed.

Cited by Counsel, 7 Watts, 565.