Estate of Light

Citations

• 136 Pa. 211
• 20 A. 536
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1024

Syllabus

<p>1. It is a well settled rule that when the statute of limitations begins to run against a debt, it will not stop because of the death of either party; and, since the decision of Yorks’ App., 110 Pa. 69, this is a rule of general application.</p> <p>2. When an attempt is made, in the distribution of a decedent’s estate in the Orphans’ Court, to set off against a legacy a debt from the legatee to the testator, the legatee may plead the statute of limitations, notwithstanding that the debt was not barred at the testator’s death.</p> <p>3. The reasoning of Thompson’s App., 42 Pa. 345, as respects the statute of limitations, is at best obiter dictum, as the cases on which it is. based do not support it, MeClintock’s App., 29 Pa. 360, being overruled in Yorks’ App., 110 Pa. 69, and Courtenay v. Williams, 3 Hare 539, is not in accord with the current of our decisions.</p> <p>4. While an adjudication, allowing a claim in a distribution in the Orphans' Court, will toll the bar of the statute of limitations: Reber’s App., 125 Pa. 20; the allowance of a dividend upon a debt by a decree of the Court of Common Pleas, distributing funds of an assigned estáte, will not have that effect.</p> <p>5. The payment of part of a debt, by an assignee for creditors of the debtor, will not keep the debt alive by implying a new promise of the assignor to pay it, because the assignee is not the agent of the assignor for that purpose, and his powers are limited by the scope of his official duties.</p>