Estate of Cessna
Estate of Cessna
Opinion of the Court
As to appellee’s motion to quash this appeal for violation of our rules relating to assignments of error, it is only necessary to repeat, in substance, what has so often been said in Landis v. Evans, 113 Pa. 332, and many other cases, that assignments of error are an essential part of the pleadings in this Court, and, as such, they should be so complete in themselves as not to require reference to other parts of the record presented for our consideration. When the cause is disposed of by us and the record is remitted to the court below, all that usually remains of record here are the praecipe, assignments of error and pleas thereto. These should be so complete in themselves as to show the basis of our judgment or decree, as the case may be. It must therefore be obvious to every reflecting mind that each specification of error, respectively, should, in and of itself, present the question we are called upon to decide.
Tested by this principle, the motion to quash is well taken and should prevail; but we are all so well satisfied with the correctness- of the learned court’s decision on all the questions presented by the record that we have concluded to dispose of the cáse on its merits by affirming the decree appealed from, on the opinion of the learned president of the 20th judicial district, who specially presided at the hearing.
We deem it unnecessary to add anything to what he has so well said.
Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at appellant’s costs.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Estate of John Cessna, Appeal of John C. Kunkel
- Cited By
- 11 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Practice, Supreme Court—Defective assignments. Assignments of error are an essential part of the pleadings, and as such they should be so complete in themselves as to show the judgment or decree of the Supreme Court, without reference to any other part of the record, which is remitted to the court below after the disposal of the appeal. Executors responsible for mistake in distribution. If executors undertake to make distribution of the funds of the estate they do so at their peril, and if they make mispayments or pay to some creditors more than their proportionate share, even under a misapprehension that the estate is solvent, the loss, if any, must fall upon the executors, and not upon the other creditors. Decedents' estates—Debts—Collateral security—Release—Distribution. C. borrowed from K. $35,000, pledging as security one hundred $1,000 bonds, with the stipulation that for every $1,000 paid to K. two bonds should be returned. He borrowed $5,000 from J., pledging as collateral security ten of the same kind of bonds. He then assigned his redemption right in these 110 bonds as collateral security for certain enumerated debts. He died insolvent. His executors redeemed the ten bonds pledged to J., by paying J.’s indebtedness. They redeemed fifteen of the bonds pledged to K. by paying $7,500, and sold fourteen of them for $14,000. Held, that when the executors withdrew the fifteen bonds from K. the latter had no further claim on them, and was, therefore, not entitled to the difference between the amount paid to redeem them and the amount realized from their sale.