Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): § 991, at 146 (1956). Similarly, another treatise explains: “The personal representative may require a receipt or a release as a condition precedent to payment of a legacy or distributive share, which receipt or release discharges the representative from further liability, in the absence of impeaching circumstances such as fraud or mistake.” 34 C.J.S. Executors and Administrators § 656. Courts in other jurisdictions similarly have found that a personal representative is entitled to a release prior to making a distribution. See Ford v. Wilson, 85 A. 1073, 1077 (Del.Ch. 1913) (personal representative had a right to require a release from a distributee prior to making the final settlement of an estate); Sterrett v. Nat’l Safe Deposit, Savings & Trust Co., 10 App.D.C. 131, 139 (1897) (<HOLDING>); First Midwest Bank v. Dempsey, 157 Ill.App.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that even if a thirdparty administrator is not a fiduciary under erisa such an administrator still has standing  pursuant to   1331 (B) holding that payment made in reasonable belief that it was required by an insurance contract was involuntary (C) recognizing that the administrator was amply protected if it made a distribution but nonetheless was entitled to exact releases upon payment of distributions (D) recognizing that an employer had a dual role as administrator of plan and as employer and only the role of administrator was held to a fiduciary standard (E) holding that it was not essential to an action by a supplier on a payment bond under the miller act that a demand be made on the general contractor for payment  although there was evidence in the case from which it could be found that the materialman looked to the general contractor for payment  since the statute does not require a demand for payment but merely requires written notice of the claim
Output (English): holding that it was not essential to an action by a supplier on a payment bond under the miller act that a demand be made on the general contractor for payment  although there was evidence in the case from which it could be found that the materialman looked to the general contractor for payment  since the statute does not require a demand for payment but merely requires written notice of the claim