Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1886-05-12

A., ....c,css,cu Of an Administrators Accounts
new way to Collect Old Debts.

| a, Adjudication Of an Administrators Accounts
a Now way to Collect Old Debts.
| r,om the Philadelphia Bulletin.
| some three weeks ago, Judge Ashiuan, of
| the orphans court, adjudicated the account
Of william Loeb, administrator of the estate
of his wife, Mrs. Lottie Loeb, VINO died in
testate on March Q, 1854. Credits taken IN
the account for funeral expenses OF the de-
cedent, medical attendance in her last sick
ness, and for board and nursing OF her emil
dren after her death, amounting Ia S5'ObO,
were stricken out because they we're debts
for which the husband was primarily
liable, and it had not been shown that
he was insolvent An additional credit
in the sum of s3, 3,06250, money said to have
been paid to Jacob Loeb, the father OF the
accountant, according To a receipt produced,
was also dsallowed. The receipt was dated
January 8, 1856, and was "tor debts and in-
terest for money loaned on the 2lst day of
June, 1851, interest ut five per cent. per
annum." The judge in disallowing this
credit, stated Cat" council for the accountant
explained that this payment which amounted
to more than one-half of the entire estate,
was emitted from the account, because the
administrator forgot he had made il. Some
attempt followed to show that the decedent
after her husbands failure, carried on business
rs a femme sole trader in Lancaster, Pennsyl-
yania, and for that purpose a certificate from
the prothonotary of the court OF common
pleas of Lancaster county was produced,
which certified that deCedentS petition, an
plying for the benefit of the act OF Aprll -
1872, bad been marked filed and recorded IN
the recorders office but the petition itseii
was not set forth. The allegation was that
she used in her business the late stock OF her
husband, which had been sold bv the sheriu
on Judgment held by the husbands father,
Jacob Loeb, and bought in 10y the latter, and
then transferred to the decedenL The trans
actions were not proved, aud the cIaim is
therefore rejected.
The same claimant William Loeb again
appeared as a creditor of another of his rela-
tives according to an adjudication filed by
Judge penrose this morning. The adIudica-
tion was of the account of Nanny SwartZ,
ct al, executors of the estate ot Albert
Swartz, who died April l1th, 1855. The
decedsnt, who was the father ot Mrs Lottie
Loeb, the wife of the ciaimant, lett an estate
OF over s63,0oo in trust for tho benefit OF his
relatives William Loeb put in claim
against the estate in behalf of his two minor
children, Irwin !. :. aud Albert Loeb, which
| the court rejected. Judge PenrOse, in dispos-
| ing OF it, held that the "claim was pre-
| seuted on behalf of William LUeh a. next
friend OF his children, Irwin J :. and Albert
| s, Loeb, aud as Administrator oi his wife,
| Lottie Loeb for An amount alleged to be due
for moneys loaned by her to the decedeut
| and objection was made to the credit claimed
| for payment OF a Que bill for $1,000 The
| claim and objections are of the same Charac.
ter, each being alike discrodtaOie in the high
| est degree 10 the party making them, The
due bill was given 10y the decedent to VIM.
| Loeb in his individual name, and was PAID
| to hun by the Accountants. AT the time
! of presenting it for payment he erased
| his name ~ payee for the purpose, hs
he stated, Of concealing irom his nfgiItors the
| fact that he had received SO muCn money.
| This erasure he now sets up a reason Tor
| disallow ing the credit He alleges as an
other reason that the due bill, though given
in his name, was really the property OF his
| wifo's estate and the rayn ent to him, there
| fore. improper. So far as the credit in the
| account is concerned. however, 1t il inmate
| rial whether the beneficial ownership was in
| the wiie's estate or not; the legal title was i'll
| him, and when he received the money he at
| once held il as trustee. II does not lie in his
| mouth, as against the party making the pay
| ment, to set up his own dishonesty, or to al
| lege that he deirauded the estate of which
| he is the protector.
So a. to the claim tor moneys loaned, it is
| not denied that the whole amount has been
! received by the claimant, but as part of 1t was
paid to him before he became administrator,
he now asserts that such payment was i'm.
| proper, and in his official capacity demands
| that it should be paid TO him second time
but in receiving the money before the grant
OF letters of administration he acted either as
his wlie's agent or as executor de son tort
| (ot his own wrOng), and the possession thus
acquired would enure, by way OF remitter
| to the benefit of her estate the moment the
letters were granted; if in the meanw bile h'
embezzled the amount which appears to b'
the theory upon which the claim i
based, IL has been shown, in the
present proceeding at least, that he is insol
vent and even if this should be the case, a
he is husband as well As administrator th,
moneys so embe2zled can be awarded 20 hin
IN distribution rs part OF his share OF her estat
The clai is disallowed and the objection
to the credit overruled. In view of what ha'
thus been alleged on the part of William
Loeb, 1t would be proper that an application
| should be made on behalf OF his ninOl
children for the re-reterence of his account
as administrator of his wife to the judge 10y
whom it has been sdjudicated, III order thai
he may be surcharged with moneys belong
ing TO her estate received by him, in his in
dividual capacity, and with held from the
children OF whom he is the father and, sc
called, next friend"