In re Estate of Buck
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Feitz Estate (Pa. 1961)
- Ryan Estate (Pa. 1953)
- In re John F. Doyle & Son (3d Cir. 1913)
- Judge v. Bank (In re Lorimal, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1982)
- Davidson v. City of Coral Gables (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1960)
- Kosco v. Hachmeister, Inc. (Pa. 1959)
- Stachnick Estate (Pa. 1954)
- Pichler v. Snavely (Pa. 1951)
- Little Beaver Valley Post VFW License (Beaver County Court of Quarter Sessions 1949)
- Kisslinger's Appeal (Northampton County Court of Quarter Sessions 1946)
- Spankard's Liquor License Case (Pa. Super. Ct. 1939)
- In re Mitchell (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1918)
- In re Doyle (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1913)
- Hannon v. Harper (Cal. Ct. App. 1908)
- In re Olewine (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1903)
- Goeltz Estate (Cumberland County Orphans' Court 1951)
- Tschopp's Estate (Pa. Super. Ct. 1919)
- Moran's Estate (Pa. 1918)
- Gordon v. Corning (Ind. 1910)
- Aschenbach v. Carey (Pa. 1909)
- Brady's Estate (Pa. Super. Ct. 1902)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
The finding of the learned auditing judge that the unexpired term of the lease of the saloon and the good will of the business with the opportunity of procuring a transfer of the license were worth from $2,000 to $2,500, and that the accountant, without making an effort to procure a purchaser, appropriated them to himself, fully sustains the surcharge made. In Grimm’s
A license to sell liquor is a personal privilege. It is not assignable by the holder, and at his death it does not go to his representatives. It is not an asset of his estate : Blumenthal’s Petition, 125 Pa. 412. An executor or administrator could not under the law carry on the business for the benefit of the estate if he so desired: Grimm’s Appeal, supra. But the fact that a license had been granted to sell liquor at a particular place may increase the value of that which the executor or administrator may have to sell. On the hearing of an application for a retail license the court considers the public necessity of the place as well as the personal fitness of the applicant, and the granting of a license is the finding that the place in its location and appointments is a suitable place for the sale of liquor. The opportunity to secure a transfer of the license and a renewal at the end of the year may materially affect the value of the fixtures, good will and unexpired term of the lease. When this is shown to be the case, and the accountant has failed in the performance of a plain duty, there is ground for surcharge.
The order of the Orphans’ Court is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.