200 Pa. 545 | Pa. | 1901
Opinion by
The opinion of the learned judge below states with entire accuracy the present position of this controversy, and the results of the decisions in 178 Pa. 78, and 192 Pa. 60. We therefore affirm the older on his opinion, but equity under all the circumstances requires a slight modification. The parties have been distinctly notified, both by the orphans’ court and by this court, that their accounts could not be settled in this proceeding, and that it was a case for amicable reference or a bill in equity. The fact that the appellee’s claim has been reduced to two items does not vary the status of the case, for it clearly appears that these items are not separate debts of the decedent which could be proved in the orphans’ court, but are parts of numerous transactions in which there were mutual obligations, requiring an account which can only be adjusted in a court of general equity jurisdiction.
Notwithstanding this repeated warning, however, the parties have not chosen to regard it. Without going at all into the merits, the appellee is the one technically in fault. He came into court with a claim which could not be adjudicated there, and he was so told and the proper forum pointed out to him.
With this modification the decree is affirmed on the opinion of the court below.
