Heft's Appeal
Heft's Appeal
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
The opinion of the learned judge of the orphans’ court clearly shows that the property assigned to Heft, as security for a debt, remaining in possession of the assignor, upon his death passed into custody of the law for administration. Eor the reasons there given the decree, except as to commissions, must be affirmed.
Letters of administration were granted to the appellant in a week after the decedent’s death. That he prudently disposed of the property is unquestioned. Nor is there anything to show that he did not believe he had a right, by virtue of the assignment, to appropriate the proceeds of the assigned property to payment of the debt which the parties to the instrument intended to secure. He was mistaken, and is liable for interest. The fund for distribution is as large as it would have been had he not claimed that the part derived from the sale of the assigned
Under the circumstances, we think he should be allowed the usual compensation for his services.
Decree affirmed, with modification that the appellant be allowed the commissions claimed in the account; costs of appeal to be paid by administrator out of money of estate.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Jacob D. Heft's Appeal. Estate of John F. Jackson
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Possession, on the part of a mortgagee of personal property, capable of actual, corporeal occupation, is essential to the validity of his lien as against other creditors. The death of the debtor gives to general creditors the right to deny the validity of such a mortgage when possession has not been taken in the debt- or’s lifetime. By the death of the debtor his personal estate in possession passes into the custody of the law for administration; and the mortgagee has no right to undertake to administer any part of it for the satisfaction of his own debt. But where the mortgagee in good faith intervenes, and in administration of the estate sells the pledge and settles an account of the proceeds, he is entitled to commissions, although he must pay interest for the proceeds in the meantime appz’opriated and used in his business, in the belief that they belong to himself. Cited in Carraeher’s Estate, 27 Pa. Co. Ct. 238. Note. — A chattel mortgage is not valid in Pennsylvazzia against creditors of the mortgagor without a change of possession (Welsh v. Bekey, 1 Penr. & W. 57; Modes's Estate, 76 Pa. 502; Widdall v. Garsed, 125 Pa. 358, 17 Atl. 418) ; unless such change is impossible (Fry v. Miller, 45 Pa. 441; Bismark Bldg. & L. Asso. v. Bolster, 92 Pa. 123); such as the mortgage of a legacy ■(Campbell’s Estate, 13 Pa. Co. Ct. 35, 2 Pa. Dist. R. 665). Though a change was practicable, and nozze takes place, the mortgage is good between the parties or as against purchasers with notice. Coble v. Nonemaker, 78 Pa. 501.