Case ID: pa-super_48/html/0396-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Ctjbiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hains’s Estate.
    
      Poor laws — Pauper’s estate — Sale of real estate.
    
    Where the real estate of a pauper is sold after his death by his administrator for the payment of- debts under a decree of the orphans’ court, the poor district cannot maintain a claim, in the orphans’ court to reimburse itself out of the proceeds of the sale for maintenance of the-pauper furnished to him in his lifetime.
    Argued Nov. 15, 1911.
    Appeal, No. 185, Oct. T., 1911, by directors of the Poor and House of Employment for the County of Berks, from decree of O; C. Berks Co., Feb. T., 1911, No. 17, dismissing, exceptions to adjudication in Estate of Susanna Hains, deceased.
    Before Rice, P. J., Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head, Beaver and Porter-, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Exceptions to adjudication.
    From the record it appeared that the directors of the poor claimed $1,160.26 from the proceeds of the decedent’s real estate to reimburse the poor district for the maintenance of the decedent as a pauper during her lifetime.
    The auditing judge disallowed the claim.
    The court in an opinion by Bland, P. J., sustained the the adjudication.
    
      Error assigned was in dismissing exceptions to adjudication.
    
      Joseph B. Dickinson, for appellant, cited:
    Jester v. Jefferson Twp. Overseers, 11 Pa. -540; Mumma’s App., 127 Pa. 474; Directors of Poor and House of Employment of Montg. County v. Nyce, 161 Pa. 82.
    
      Caleb J. Bieber, for appellees.
    December 11, 1911:
   Pee Ctjbiam,

The question presented for decision is thus stated by appellant’s counsel: “Whether, where after the death of the pauper the administrator of her estate sells real estate of the pauper for the payment of debts under a decree of the orphans’ court, the poor district can maintain a claim in the orphans’ court to reimburse it for maintenance furnished out of the proceeds of such sale.” This question was fully considered in Stewart’s Estate, 38 Pa. Superior Ct. 177, and decided in the negative. Nothing that has been suggested in the argument leads us to doubt the correctness of that conclusion or the applicability of the ruling to the facts of the present case. We will add nothing upon the subject to what we said in that case.

The decree is affirmed at the costs of the appellant.