Montgomery County Law Reporter (Volume 12)

This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1896. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... P1erson's Estate. When an account has been filed in due course and has been duly advertised, its adjudication awarding distribution is, after confirmation, mandatory upon the accountant, and he has no right to refuse distribution on the ground that no refunding bond has been given or tendered. Sur Petit1on for attachment. 0. Percy Bright, Esq., for petitioner. Sharp & Alteman, Esqs., contra. Opinion of the court by Penrose, J., May 29, 1896. When an account has been filed after the expiration of a year from the grant of letters testamentary or of administration, and has been duly advertised by the Register and Clerk of .the Court, its adjudication awarding distribution is, after confirmation, mandatory upon the accountant, and he has no right to refuse compliance on the ground that no refunding bond has been given or tendered. The court, it is true, has the inherent power, irrespective of any act of Assembly, to require security from distributees when there may be interests requiring such protection: Duval's Appeal, 2 Wr., 112,120; Story's Equity, Sec. 826, et seq.; Palmer's Estate, 16 Phila., 261. But this is a matter with which the accountant, who is fully protected by the decree, has nothing to do; and it is conceded, in the present case, that the rights of creditors are adequately secured by the fund directed to be retained to meet the pending attachment sur judgment. The question has been set at rest by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ferguson vs. Yard, 164 Pa., 586. The petitioner is entitled to the attachment asked for; but in view of the statement by counsel that the accountant would be governed by the opinion of the court without waiting for process to enforce it, we will make no present order. Robert J. Baldw1n Vs. Borough Of Pottstown. In ...