History
  • No items yet
midpage
Commonwealth v. Gilson
8 Watts 214
Pa.
1839
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

It is a fatal objection to this action, that its aim is to make the sureties, in an ordinary administration bond, liable for the proceeds of the intestate’s land; a thing that cannot be done. They are irresponsible by the very words of the condition, as was held in Reed v. The Commonwealth, 11 Serg. & Rawle 441, for any thing but his goods, chattels, and credits, which were such at the time of his death; and they were consequently held to be irresponsible for a confession of judgment on which the real estate was sold, and the proceeds of it misapplied. The distinction betwixt these and the real assets is recognized, even by a statute which requires a separate bond for the latter, the administration of which, to avoid the uncertainty which springs from confusion, ought *215to appear also by a separate account. All the exceptions turn on this point; and they are consequently not sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Commonwealth v. Gilson
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: May 15, 1839
Citation: 8 Watts 214
Court Abbreviation: Pa.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.