In re Poorman's Estate
Opinion of the Court
The auditor, who made distribution, declined to decide the validity of an alleged assignee’s claim, the assignment being disputed by the heir, Mr. Fishburn. If the validity of this assignment were admitted, the Orphans’ Court might award the money to the assignee; but it is disputed both oía the ground of fraud in obtaining it and the illegality of the instrument. Although section 19 of the act of June 16th, 1836, gives jurisdiction to the Orphans’ Court, to make distribution of the assets of a decedent after the settlement of his estate “ among creditors and others interested’,” yet the creditors must be taken to be such as have admitted claims, as an adverse controverted account cannot be allowed by, or recovered in the Orphans’ Court, and the others interested are the devisees or heirs, or those claiming by a conceded transfer under them. It has been repeatedly decided that an adverse claim cannot be recovered in the Orphans’ Court against the estate of a decedent, and also that claims in favor of the administrator against the heirs or distributees cannot be allowed if disputed by them. That court is not the proper and legitimate tribunal for trying disputed facts, unless where they necessarily and directly arise within it for adjudication. The estate of the decedent must be directly interested.
Here the claim is more legitimately cognizable in the Court of Common Pleas. It is an adverse claim against one of the heirs, denied by the party interested, whose right regularly comes before us as a distributee. Suppose this transfer had gone through three or four hands, and it was not the original, but some subsequent assessment which was questioned, could the Orphans’ Court determine that controversy? Or should not the parties rather be
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.