Case Name: COLESTOCK'S APPEAL
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1884-02-02
Citations: 4 Walk. 334
Docket Number: No. 211
Parties: COLESTOCK’S APPEAL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases decided by the supreme court of pennsylvania which have been omitted from the regular reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 334–335

Head Matter:
COLESTOCK’S APPEAL.
A distributive share of an estate having been awarded to a deceased heir’s estate, the administrator of the original estate can not retain a portion of the distributi ve share in payment of his private -claim against the deceased heir.
Appeal from Orphans’ Court of Fayette County, No. 211 January Term, 1884.
Mrs. Sydney Connell died testate leaving most of her property to Joshua M. Dushane. Mrs. Connell’s brothers and sisters united together audhad the will set aside. Joseph Cole-.stock was appointed administrator of his sister, Mrs. Connell, and the fund was paid to him, Upon an audit of the estate, the sum of $1,786.11 was awarded to Elizabeth Gilmore, a sister of Mrs. Connell. Colestock paid over about $1,200 to Mrs. Gilmore’s administrator, and claimed that Mrs. Gilmore was indebted for a proportionate part of the expenses of the will contest, and some other items. The Court, however, ordered this full amount to be paid over to her administrator. 'Colestock then appealed, assigning this for arror, and also that the appointment of the administrator in Fayette county was void, as Mrs. Gilmore’s residence was in Ohio at the time of her death.
Edward Campbell, Esq., for appellant,
cited 3 Black. Com., 18; Act March 15, 1832, P. Laws, 136: Roderigas vs. East River Savings Institution, 76 N. Y., 316.
J. Collins and S. L. Mestrezat, contra.

Opinion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of Orphans' Court on February 2, 1884, in the following opinion':
Per Curiam.
This fund was correctly distributed. It was decreed to be paid to Elizabeth Gilmore, as an heir of Mrs. Sydney Connell. 'The correctness of this decree is not questioned. Mrs. Gilmore having died before the money was paid to her, the appellant, who is both heir and administrator of Mrs. Connell, refused to pay it to the appellee, who is the administrator of Mrs. Gilmore, but the Court ordered it to be so paid. In this there is no error. If the appellant has any claim against Mrs. Gilmore arising from any understanding with her in relation to the expenses in contesting the will of Mrs. Connell, it is not to be settled by withholding from the appellee the sum decreed to be paid to Mrs. Gilmore. He cannot interpose such a claim as a set off to the sum which he as Administrator was obliged to pay. The o:der to pay it to her administrator is clearly right.
Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.