DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 116
Citation Numbers: 220 Pa. 98, 69 A. 329, 1908 Pa. LEXIS 734
Judges: Brown, Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Potter, Stewart
Filed Date: 1/20/1908
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Opinion by
This was an application in the court below by J. L. M. Hal-
Subsequently, Milton 13. Painter, one of the heirs-at-law of George W. Painter, deceased,- presented his petition to the court, denying the conversion of the real estate and the authority of the administrator to make sale of it, and prayed the court to set aside and revoke the order of sale theretofore granted. This was refused, and Milton B. Painter has appealed.
In an opinion handed down herewith in the case of Thomas Painter et al. v. Peter Painter, ante, p. 82, we have held that the will of George W. Painter did not create a conversion of his real estate, and that upon the death of his widow, who had a life estate therein, it went to his heirs-at-law, and was not personalty and to be distributed as such. It therefore follows that the application made in the court below by the administrator for an order to sell the real estate should have been denied, and that the order of the court directing a sale was error.
The court should have granted appellant’s petition, and set aside and revoked the order to the administrator for the sale of the real estate.
The decree of the court below refusing to set aside and revoke its former order directing the sale of the real estate of George "W. Painter, deceased, is now reversed, and the decree of the court granting the order of sale is set aside and revoked at the costs of the appellee.