Court Opinion

ID: 9825125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:08:33.94858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:26.115493
License: Public Domain

Petition for rehearing denied November 16, 1943
On Petition eor Rehearing
(143 P. (2d) 243)
The respondents Anthony J. Connolly. and Ann Connolly have filed a petition for rehearing, in which practically all the conclusions adverse to them announced in our former opinion are criticized.
The argument in support of the petition is in large part a repetition of contentions previously urged and to which we gave the most careful consideration before rendering our decision. What is now said by the petitioners does not convince us that the opinion should be changed m any substantial respect or that a rehearing should be granted, and we think that the court is not called upon to restate the reasons which impelled our conclusions.
There are two matters, however, to which specific reference may be made. It will be recalled that Anthony J. Connolly satisfied his claim, in the amount of $37,127.68, against the estate of Thomas A. Connolly, deceased, as part of the consideration for the transfer and conveyance to Anthony J. Connolly and Ann Connolly by Kathleen Connolly of her interest, as the heir of her deceased husband, in the assets of the estate. It is urged that the amount of this claim, as well as the costs of administration which were advanced by Anthony J. Connolly, should be accorded priority as a lien against the real estate so conveyed, superior to the lien granted the plaintiff for the satisfaction of its claim against *499the estate of Thomas A. Connolly, deceased. In determining that the plaintiff was entitled to such lien, we held that, in view of the fact that Anthony J. Connolly was administrator of the estate of Thomas A. Connolly, deceased, when he and his wife made the purchase in question from the heir, and the estate was still in course of administration, he could not be regarded as a bona ficle purchaser in respect of the plaintiff’s claim, but that he acquired the interest of the heir “burdened with all the indebtedness of Thomas A. Connolly, whenever or however it might be established.” From this holding, to which we adhere, it follows that there is no question of subrogation or marshaling of assets, and no basis for allowing a lien in favor of Anthony J. Connolly in preference to that of the plaintiff.
The other matter relates to an alleged error, or at least obscurity, in the opinion in designating the real property, or the interest therein, made subject to the lien of the plaintiff’s claim. To remove any possibility of misunderstanding, we supplement our opinion with the statement that the one-half interest in such real property acquired by Anthony J. Connolly and Ann Connolly from Patrick H. Connolly is not subject to such lien.
The petition for rehearing is denied.