The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-02-26
THE DUNDAS ESTA TIE.

CONSIDERABLE INTEREST has Deeu bAClJe0 DY n case
brought up in the Supreme Court yesterday with
regard TO The administration OF the estate OF the late
James Dundas which unpleasantly involves certain
OF the executors. Mr.. Dundas died on the 4th OF
july 1906, and his VIII, which was dated March rs,
1906 was proven the 10th Of July 1885, letters
testamentary were granted to the executors named
therein, Joshua Lppncott, Richard Smethurst, and
James Dundas Lppincot.
On the 9th Of the following September the exc
outors filed an inventory OF the personal estate,
which was appraised at $780, 465 Oe and OF the real
estate, which was appraised for the collateral
inheritance tax at $3.50, ,4550S, making total OF
s1,029 ,S2616
The testator gave several cash legacles amount
ing TO s92bOO an annuity Of $4,000 to Mr.. Joshua
Lippncott one OF the executors another annuity OF
$4,000 to Mrs Agnes d. Lippincott, his wife; two
farms to James Dundas Lppincott another of the
executors and other bequests OF books, furniture,
etc., and directed that the remainder OF his estate
should be divided into forty equal shares parts to
be divided among his ncphews and nieces and their
children.
One OF the most important items in the list OF the
real estate Of Mr.. Dundas was the fine mansion at
the corner OF Broad and Walnut streets, and 1t is
with regard to the alleged improper sale OF this that
the case now before the Supreme Court is chiefly
concerned. Mir. Joshua Lippincott, one OF the ex-
eoutors, and his wife, appear to have determined to
obtain possession OF this house, and the heirs con-
tend that improper measures were taken to bid 1t In
at much lower figure than its actual value. The
house and lot were appraised at $4,000, and were
exposed for sale at the Philadelphia Exchange on
the 9th OF September 1865, by James A Freeman,
auctioneer. The sale was advertised as an "execu-
tors absolute sale" and the property was knocked
down TO Mr.. Nalbro Frazier, the highest bidder
for the sum Of s1so,OOO. Mr. Frazier,
with the consent OF the executors
transferred the deed to Mrs. LippincOtt the eTth
OF October 1885, and 1t Is understood that he merely
acted her agent I'm making the
heirs contend that this sale Illegal and they ask
that 1t shall be declared vOd that the difference
between the real value OF the property and the sum
paid for 1t by Mrs. Lippncott be assessed upon it
They charge that the 10th OF August Mrs Lippin-
colt applied to the Orphans Court for permission
to purchase, whereas at the time notice had been
given OF the intention OF the executors
to sell the property 1t was first
brought to the notice OF the public by editorial
article in one OF the newspapers nine days after
wards, and the first and only advertisement OF the
property appeared In only one paper but thirteen
days previous to the sale. No other notice OF any
kind appeared In any OF the newspapers, and upon
the property itself the only notice OF the sale
handful, eighteen inches long, tChich placed be-
hind bush IN front Of the house. No bnl whatever
was pasted upon the house or on the fences. No
cards Of admission were issued until about three
days before the sale.
The heirs further contend that in February, 1857
over too hundred and ftty thousand dollars in gold
were offered for the property, and that Mr. Lppncott
| said that that amount could not buy it
These In brief the facts Of the case, and they
certainly furnish ample grounds for the interference
| OF the court 1t is always considered point OF
| honor with executors to avoid even a shadow Of
suspicion by refusing to purchase to allow their
relatives, II possible, to purchase property In their
hands; but 1t is evident that Mr.. Lippncott in this
instance did not scruple to avail himself OF his posi-
on to secure this house and lot at much less than
| It's real value, and to prevent the sale from
being advertised In such manner would attract
| the attention OF persons disposed to bid upon 1t.
| The whole affair was discreditabe In the highest
degree, and we cannot see that there is much differ
ence between abstracting SO much money from the
estate and selling 1t for the individual benefit Of
OF the executors for about half OF its real value.
is clear that the court ought to order that the sale
| shall be set aside as void, or that Mr. Lppincot,
should be compelled to pay the full value of the pro
perty, the assessment to be as liberal possible II
there ia any Partially shown in case OF this kind
1t should be In favor OF the heirs and the larges
sum that, under any reasonable probability, coul'
| he realized by the sale OF the property should bt
| fixed upon as the rghtful value