Case Name: Clauser's Estate
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1841-05
Citations: 1 Watts & Serg. 208
Docket Number: 
Parties: Clauser’s Estate.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Watts & Sergeant)
Volume: 1
Pages: 208–221

Head Matter:
Clauser’s Estate.
An administrator may not be permitted to settle an account in the Orphans’ Court, for the mere purpose of charging the estate with a debt due to himself by the intestate in his lifetime.
An administrator having a debt by bonds against the estate of his intestate, is not exempt from the requisitions of the 4th section of the Act of 1797, to file a copy or written statement thereof, in the office of the prothonotary, within seven years after the decease of the debtor; and if he neglect to do so, the lien of the debt is gone, and he cannot afterwards charge the real estate with its payment.
APPEAL from the decree of the Orphans’ Court of Berks county, quashing the account of Peter Sheradin, administrator of Peter Clauser deceased.
Peter Clauser died in 1823, intestate, and letters of administra tion issued to Peter Sheradin, who settled his account in the Orphans’ Court in 1826, in which he charges himself with the inventory, and credits payments, leaving a balance of $370 in the hands of the accountant. In 1830 he settled a second account, in which he charges himself with the balance on the first account and other sums, amounting to $2354.89, and prays credits for disbursements (and, among others, one bond of $266.66 of the series hereafter mentioned) leaving a balance in his hands of $545.14.
The accountant, on the 13th of November 1839, rendered his third account, in which he charged himself with balance reported by auditors, November 13th, 1830, as due by him on his second account, to wit: $538 68
The accountant craved credit for disbursements made by him since former account, and with sums due, and to become due to him, as follows:
1830. Nov. 8. Cash paid guardian of deceased’s minor children..............$439 25
1831. June 3. do do do do 105 89
By the following bonds executed by intestate to the
accountant, all dated January 1, 1822, and payable as follows: to wit, (being the residue of 24 bonds, and thus numbered.)
No. 17—Bond in 200/., conditioned for 100Z., April 1, )
1838, deducting $164.60 paid V $118 07 April 1, 1839, then due )
« 18 . . . . “ . 1001 . . . “ . 266 67
« 19 . . . . « . 100Z. . . 1840 266 66
“ 20 . . . . “ . 100Z. . . 1841 266 66
“ 21 . . . . “ . 100Z. . . 1842 266 67
« 22 . . . . “ . 100Z. . . 1843 266 67
« 23 . . . . “ . 100Z. . . 1844 266 66
« 24 . . . . “ • 66Z. 2s. 6d. 1845 176 33
Interest due on bond No. 17 ....... 4 36
Do do No. 18 ....... 9 86
Fees paid Register, &c. ....... 8 00
Stating account . . . . ..... . . 5 00
Commission to accountant . ..... . . 10 00
Dr. $538.68
Cr. Due this day, 428.41
“ To become due 1509.65
$2467.74
1840. The account was presented to the Orphans’ Court,
January 10. and they appointed Dennis O’Brien, Andrew Sal-lade, Franklin B. Schoener, Esquires, auditors, who on the 8th April, 1840, reported the account as cor rect, giving accountant credit for expenses of audit, viz. §33.50, and making the balance then due accountant to be........§738.37
To become due as per credit side of acc’t 1242.98
§1981.35
1841 Ap’l 10. Report of auditors was read and confirmed nisi : Aug. 7. Mr. Strong filed the following exceptions:
1. The auditors erred in allowing accountant credit for the sums §439.25 105.89 118.07 266.67 266.66 266.67 266.67 266.67 266.66 176.33 4.36 9.86 8.00 5.00 and commission 10.00.
2. Auditors erred in not charging accountant interest.
The following testimony was taken on behalf of the accountant: October 23,1830, before William A. Wells, Esq., according to rule:
John Weidenhammer being produced and sworn, (the attorney for the exceptant objects to the witness, he being guardian for one of the minor children,) deposeth and saith that he is acquainted with the handwriting of George Kemp; from his knowledge of the handwriting, he believes that the name of George Kemp to the attestation of bonds by Peter Clauser to Peter Sheradin, marked A. B. C. D. E. F. G. & H., is the handwriting of said George Kemp, and that the said George Kemp is deceased, and-George Kemp, Junior, the other subscribing witness to said bonds, is also dead. Witness says that the name of John Weidenhammer as a witness to agreement, dated 18th December, 1839, and marked I., is deponent’s handwriting, and that he saw the parties to that agreement execute the same.
Witness says that when Peter Clauser died, Peter Sheradin hired a man to work the farm of said Peter Clauser, in Richmond township, Berks county, for four or five years, and that the widow and children of said Peter Clauser continued to live on the place during that time, and that William Clauser, the tenant, lived also on the place.
Then the old man, Peter Sheradin, gave up the place, and administered to the estate of Peter Clauser. Then the administrator made vendue of the personal property, and I was appointed guardian of Catharine and Peter Clauser, two of the minor children of said deceased, and Samuel Fegely was appointed guardian of William and Maria, and Elizabeth, the other child of the deceased, was married to Matthias Roth, The widow of Peter Clauser, deceased, is a daughter of Peter Sheradin. When we were appointed guardians, we leased the property—I asked Peter Sheradin how many bonds he had against the estate, he said seventeen. We had no agreement about the bonds, but every spring what was left after paying the expenses of the farm, was paid on the bonds as they fell due, from 1829 or ’30 until last spring, when we paid nothing. The old man wanted us to try and keep the place until the eldest son had his age, that he might have a chance of taking it. It was my meaning that the place should be kept until the eldest son should attain his age, and so we have done until this time. The property is now under lease. The farm of Peter Clauser, at the time of his death, was not worth near as much as it is now. During the time that Peter Sheradin farmed the property after the death of Peter Clauser, he managed it as well as if it had been his own, and he managed it well.
Cross-examined.—Witness says Peter Clauser died the 16th of May 1823.
Samuel Fegely being produced and sworn, (the attorney for the exceptant objecting to the witness, he being guardian for some of the minor children) deposeth and saith, that there was no understanding regarding the payment of the bonds. From the time we were appointed guardians we rented the property every year. When the first rent was due, old Sheradin demanded a bond. We paid every spring one bond until John Ressler, who married the widow of Peter Clauser, had the land appraised. We paid the bonds out of the rent. We settled with Ressler, and paid him $412.
To the best of my recollection, Mrs. Ressler moved awayfrom the property the spring of 1828 or ’29. Peter Sheradin farmed the place after the death of Peter Clauser—Peter Sheradin always said to me that he wished us to keep the farm until the eldest son attained his age. And so we have done until this time; he will not attain his age, so it is said, until next harvest; eight or nine bonds have been paid off, each of £100; as they were paid they were delivered to me and I have them in my possession. Mr Sheradin was present at the time of the agreement between Ressler and wife, myself and Weidenhammer as guardians, and Matthias Roth, and he was satisfied that we should do so. The rents fell short, so that we were unable to pay the bonds as they fell due, and we are behind now.
Letters of administration upon the estate of Peter Clauser were granted to Peter Sheradin May 26th 1825.
Translation of an agreement of 8th of November 1830, referred to in Fegely’s deposition.
The following articles were concluded on the 8th day of November 1830, between John Ressler and Judith, his wife, late the widow of Peter Clauser, deceased, of Richmond township, Berks county, in the state of Pennsylvania, of the one part, and John Weidenhammer, guardian of Peter and Catharine, Samuel Fegely, guardian of William and Maria, Matthias Roth for his wife Elizabeth, all children and heirs of the estate late of the deceased Peter Clauser, of the same place, of the other part, to wit:
In consideration of the hereinafter mentioned sum, the said John Ressler and his wife Judith agree and promise herewith for themselves, their heirs, executors and administrators, to give up the third part of the personal and real property to which the aforesaid Judith as widow is entitled, according to the laws of the land, all the demands that they have for the time of eleven years beginning with the first day of April next, and ending with the first day of April 1842, when the said John Ressler and his wife Judith shall be again entitled to demand the interest of the third part as her dower, according to the laws of the land, out of the real estate of the deceased Peter Clauser. In pursuance of this agreement, the aforesaid guardians, to wit, John Weidenhammer, Samuel Fegely and Matthias Roth for themselves, their heirs, executors and administrators, as guardians of the abovenamed children and heirs- of the aforesaid Peter Clauser deceased, agree and promise for eleven years to come, and their share of the personal goods to pay the sum of four hundred and five dollars, good and current money of the state of Pennsylvania, on the first day of April 1831, to the aforesaid John Ressler, or his order; which in regard to the said eleven years is as interest of her dower out of the real estate and the third part of the personal estate of the said Peter Clauser, in full for the said eleven years, and after the end of the said eleven years, the said Ressler and his wife Judith shall again be entitled to the aforesaid dower out of the real estate as the laws prescribe, and this agreement shall be null and void ; still the third part of the personal estate is settled' in full and received with the above sum, and for the true performance of all the abovementioned articles each of the said parties bind themselves, their heirs, executors, and administrators and assigns, to the other party his heirs, executors administrators and assigns, in the penal sum of eight hundred dollars, Pennsylvania money. In testimony whereof, &c.
Signed and sealed by the parties in the presence of Peter Sheradin and John Wanner, subscribing witnesses.
Translation of agreement proved by John Weidenhammer, and marked I.
Articles of agreement dated 18th of December, A. D. 1839, between Matthias Roth, his wife Elizabeth, late Elizabeth Clauser, William Mertz, his wife Maria, late Maria Clauser, and Catharine Clauser, all children and legal heirs of Peter Clauser deceased, late of Richmond township, Berks county, of the one part, and Peter Sheradin, of Maxatawny township, in said Berks county, administrator of the estate of the aforesaid Peter Clauser deceased, of the other part, have been agreed upon in' the following manner, to wit:
We, the abovenamed heirs of the said Peter Clauser, promise hereby for ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, that we are satisfied our proportion of the following bonds which our father Peter Clauser in his lifetime put out to the said Peter Sheradin, and which are not yet paid, some due and some to become due—namely, one bond dated January the 1st A. D. 1822, for the payment of £100, April 1st 1838, on which bond on last first day of April were paid $165.60; then follow yet six bonds, all dated January 1st 1822, for the payment of £100 annually on the 1st of April, to wit: April 1st 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, 1843, 1844, each bond for £100, and one bond also dated January 1st 1822, for £66 2s. 6d., on the 1st day of April A. D. 1845. Of the above bonds we promise to pay our proportions as heirs of the said Peter Clauser, or to allow them to be deducted from the rent or income of the real estate of Peter Clauser deceased; if, however, the said real estate should be appraised and accepted in the Orphans’ Court of Berks county, by us or any of the said Peter Clauser’s heirs, as the laws prescribe, then we are content the three or our three parts to allow to be deducted what comes upon us to pay the said bonds to the said Peter Sheradin or to his heirs, executors and administrators; if, however, the land should not be accepted, or a part thereof be accepted, and part sold, then we are content to bear our proportion of the said debt, and it shall be kept' back out of the purchase money when it is paid on the bonds by the purchaser or the acceptor or acceptors. In consideration of the abovementioned, Peter Sheradin, for himself, his heirs, executors and administrators or assigns, promises that the abovenamed three children and heirs of the said Peter Clanser deceased, shall pay no costs that I make or that shall be made to recover the money for the abovementioned bonds from the remaining heirs of the said Peter Clauser by process, or in any other manner or way; and for the true performance of this agreement, and every article thereof, each of the abovenamed parties bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, to the other party, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns herewith. Witness our hands and seals.
Signed and sealed by the parties in the presence of John Weidenhammer and Samuél Hoch.
On argument upon the exceptions filed, the court below quashed the report of the auditors and the account filed.
Davis and Smith, for appellant,
argued that the second account settled in 1830 was not a final settlement of the estate: the administrator there credited himself with one bond of the series, being the only one then due; he could not credit the others at their cash value, for they were not due. And he makes such arrangement regarding them as seems to him best to promote the interests of the heirs. But what has the Act of Limitation to do with a case like this ? The design of that law was to give notice of debts due by the estate. Notice to whom ? to creditors ? In this case there are none to be affected by want of notice. To the heirs ? Why certainly they had notice, for their guardians and the husband of the widow entered into agreements respecting the time and manner of their payment. 8 Serg. & Rawle 35; 5 Watts 548; 6 Watts 42.
Strong, for appellee.
This case is clearly within the principle settled in 5 Watts 84; and the accountant accomplished no purpose by the settlement of the account, but the assertion of a debt due to himself.
But is not the claim gone by lapse of time ? There is no reason why an executor or administrator should be exempt from the requisitions of the Act of 1797. He may file a written statement of his claim. It is not a question of notice or of knowledge, but the positive requisition of a statute, and the knowledge of the heirs will not alter the rule. 6 Watts 22. The agreement referred to is signed by only a part of the heirs, and does not contemplate any provision for keeping alive the lien of these bonds. After the lapse of seven years the Orphans’ Court will not grant an order of sale of lands. 8 Watts 253; 5 Pick. 140. The administrator in this case, then, will not be permitted to get at a sale of the real estate by this indirect mode.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
An executor will not be permitted to settle an account in the Orphans' Court, for the mere purpose of charging the estate with the debts due to himself by the testator, in his lifetime. Shenck's Administration Account, (5 Watts 84.) In that ease, no assets had ever come to the hands of the executor, but in his account he charged himself with the amount of the inventory, and prayed a credit for it, as having gone into the hands of his co-executor. The argument was, that he was at liberty to pursue this course, because, never having had any assets in his hands, he could not retain the amount of his debt,, so that in that aspect, this case is less favourable to the right claimed by the administrator. For although his debts were not due at the time he made his settlement, yet there was nothing to prevent his bringing them into the account, and retaining an amount of the assets sufficient to satisfy them. When an administrator has fully settled his account, he is not entitled to exhibit another account, unless he is in possession of assets not already accounted for, or is out of pocket for disbursements in his office. 5 Watts 84. The accountant having failed to bring himself within either category, comes within the decision cited. The administrator settled his accounts, the last of which purported to be a final account, in which he acknowledges he has in his hands for distribution, $538.65. Although no formal decree of the court is made, yet, according to our practice, we must take it as if it was made. Why the accountant omitted to charge the estate with debts owing to him, does not distinctly appear; although it may have arisen from a mistaken apprehension that they could not be charged in the account until they were due. But from whatever cause it arose, as he has slipped his opportunity, he cannot retrace his steps in the mode which he has adopted. And we come to this conclusion with less reluctance, because the party is not without remedy by petition for review, in the manner pointed out in the Act of the 13th of October 1840. The 4th section of the Act of the 29th of March 1832, has been relied on, which gives jurisdiction' to the Orphans' Court, to make distribution of the assets or surplusage of the estates of decedents after settlement among creditors, or others interested. But this power cannot be exercised through the medium of an administration account, for the register has nothing to do with the estate after settlement of the account. It must be brought to the notice of the Orphans' Court by petition, either by the heirs, or some other person interested in the estate. The same may be said as to the remedy provided in the 3d section.
This seems to be an attempt to reach the real estate of the decedent, by subjecting it to sale, by the order of the court, for the balance due the administrator. But this object cannot be attained in this manner. The Orphans' Court will not grant an order for the sale of real estate for the payment of the debts of the intestate, which have lost their lien by lapse of time. The 4th section of the Act of the 4th of April, 1797, provides, that no debts, &c. shall remain a lien longer than seven years after the decease of the debtor, &c., unless an action for the recovery thereof be commenced and duly prosecuted, &c. within the period of seven years; or a copy, or particular written statement of any bond, covenant, debt, or demand, when the same is not payable within that period, shall be filed in the office of the prothonotary, where the lands lie. As the intention is to give notice of the debt, there is nothing in reason, or in the Act, which exempts an executor from its obligations; for although he cannot sue himself, there is nothing to prevent his filing a copy or written statement of his claim. Unless we require this, it puts it in the power of an executor to do a great wrong to purchasers and heirs, by concealing his own claims. The directions of the Act are very clear and precise; and nothing short of what is there required, can extend the lien of the creditor beyond the prescribed period. This case, it is true, presents a case of individual hardship, but we must be careful to prevent such considerations from affecting our judgments. The administrator, no doubt, who was acting for his grandchildren, pursued the course which he supposed would best promote their interest, without a thought that he was jeoparding himself; and we would willingly relieve him from the situation in which he has placed himself from his mistaken kindness. At first we doubted, whether the parol and written agreements that the bonds which he held against the estate, should be paid as they became due, would preserve the liens between the immediate parties to the contract. But with every disposition to relieve the accountant, we are unable to discover this intention expressed in the agreements, whatever might have been the understanding of the parties. The administrator of Sheradin may have a remedy, in part, by suit on the agreement, which creates a personal responsibility, at least, and which may be rendered an effectual security, out of the proceeds of the land, which is pledged for its payment.