9 Watts 132 | Pa. | 1839
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The wife of the accountant was one of several specific devisees of certain portions of the real estate of the testator, as also one of several devisees of the residuum of his real estate, not specifically devised; which, with the personal estate, was charged with the payment of his debts; and if necessary for that purpose, his executors were authorized to sell and dispose of it.. The personal estate proved insufficient to pay the debts; and though admitted that the residuum of the real was sufficient to supply the deficiency in the personal, yet not having been sold by the executors for that purpose, and the commissioners of Allegheny county having a judgment against the estate, sued out a writ of fieri facias thereon, by virtue of which the real estate specifically devised to the wife of the accountant, was taken in execution and extended. The accountant at this time, not having become the administrator of the estate, made an arrangement with the commissioners of Allegheny county, and by obtaining time for the purpose, paid off the judgment; some portion thereof before he became administrator, and the residue subsequently. In settling his administration account he claimed to charge the estate with the amount of the money thus paid, and interest thereon from the time of payment. The auditors and the court below thought he was not entitled to have a credit allowed to him for the same in his account, and accordingly rejected it. Some other credits claimed, which were considered by the auditors as depending entirely upon the allowance or disallowance of the amount paid the commissioners of the county, were also rejected. The accountant considering himself aggrieved by the decision of the court, in this behalf, appealed therefrom to this court. The only objection, of any apparent weight, made against the accountant’s being allowed the credits claimed by him is, that it would enable him or his representatives to proceed for the recovery of the amount thereof against that portion of the testator’s real estate which has been specifically devised to others. This, however, by no means necessarily follows; because it would be the duty of whomsoever he may be that shall have the further administration of the testator’s estate, to make sale of so much of the residuum thereof as will produce money sufficient to pay the amount or balance remaining unpaid. It is clear that this ought to have been
Decree accordingly.