
    SCHMITT’S APPEAL.
    Where an administrator’s account has been confirmed and the fund distributed, the Court will not after five years, strike the proceedings from the records, on the ground that the administrator was not in fact the son of the decedent, and therefore not entitled to act as administrator.
    Appeal from the Orphans’ Court of Philadelphia County. No. 162 January Term, 1886.
    Charles E. Meurer was married at Strasburg, in Germany, about April 26,1844 to Marie Henrietta Schmitt, who, at that time, had two children living, Edward E. I., horn about July 31st, 1839, and Charles, horn about May 30th, 1843. These two children were raised and educated by Charles E. Meurer, and acknowledged as such and took his name. Charles E. Meurer brought his wife and two children to America in 1852, and lived in Philadelphia, where he died on March 20th, 1875. Mrs. Meurer died about a month previous to her husband. In 1844, Herman Schmitt, administrator d. b. n. e. t. a., filed the following petition in the Orphans’ Court of Philadelphia :
    That he is informed and believes that the said Charles E. Meurer died at Philadelphia on the twentieth day of March, 1875, and on the twenty-second day of March, 1875, letters of administration upon his estate were granted by the Register of Wills for the County of- Philadelphia. By virtue of his said .appointment, the said Edward E. I. Meurer thereupon took possession of all the pérsonal property of the said decedent. That ■on the twenty-ninth day of August, 1876, the said Edward E. I. Meurer filed an account as administrator of the said estate in the office of the Register of Wills for the County of Philadelphia. By the said account it appears that a balance of $848.32 was due by the estate to the accountant. That on the twenty-seventh day of October, 1876, the said Edward E. I. Meurer, administrator as aforesaid, filed in your Honorable Court another account, called a “substituted account.” By this account a balance of $330.78 of the funds of the estate is shown to be in the hands of the said accountant, but no distribution of the said money or any part thereof, has ever been made by the said Edward F. I. Meurer, as your petitioner is informed and believes. By the records of your Honorable Court, it appears that the said account was audited by the Court on the 27th day of October, 1876. Your petitioner is informed and believes that the administration of the said estate by the said Edward E. I. Meurer, was wrongful and illegal, because at or about the time of the grant of the said letters of administration by the said Register of "Wills and for a year previous to the filing of his account, the said Edward E. I. Meurer had knowledge of the existence of a last will and testament of the said Charles E. Meurer, , deceased, and at the time of the audit of his said account had the said will in his possession, but wrongfully and in violation of law and of his duty, concealed the said will and neglected to offer it for probate. That the said Edward E. I. Meurer on or about the 23d day of January, 1884, propounded for probate in the office of the Register of Wills, for the County of Philadelphia, the said will of the said Charles E. Meurer, deceased, and petitioned the said Register of Wills to grant letters of administration cum testamento annexo to the said Edward E. I. Meurer. Objection was made thereto by Charles Meurer, the son of the testator, and the said Register upon due consideration, and after taking the testimony of certain witnesses, admitted the said will to probate and appointed your petitioner (at the suggestion of Charles Meurer, the son of the decedent) to be the administrator of cum testamento annexo' of the said estate. That the said will was produced by the said Edward E. I. Meurer, and offered for probate immediately upon the filing of a certain Bill in Equity, in the Court of Common Pleas, for the County of Philadelphia, No. 3, to December Term, 1883, No. 605, on-behalf of the said Charles Meurer against the said Edward E. I. Meurer, praying for the cancellation of certain deeds of conveyance fraudulently obtained from the said Charles Meurer by the said Edward E. I. Meurer, conveying to the said Edward E. I. Meurer certain real estate, No. 1025 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, which belonged to to the said Charles E. Meurer, deceased, and descended to his said son, Charles Meurer. That the said Edward E. I. Meurer is not, as your petitioner is informed and believes, the son of the said Charles E. Meurer, deceased, and is not entitled to share in his estate, but that the aforesaid Charles Meurer is the only son and sole heir at law of the said decendent. That your petitioner is informed and believes that the said Charles Meurer was not-present, nor was he represented at the audit of the account filed by the said Edward E. I. Meurer as administrator as aforesaid, nor had he any actual knowledge of the filing of the said account, and that the said Charles Meurer has not received any portion of the property to which he is entitled, as the sole heir-at-law of his said father. That the said Edward E. I.' Meurer, by reason of his wrongful and illegal administration of the said estate, and of a. filing of his said account, has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of your Honorable Court, and that the present proceeding is necessary to the proper settlement of the said decendent’s estate by your petitioner.
    Your petitioner therefore prays your honors to grant a citation directed to the said Edward E. I. Meurer to appear and show cause, if any he has, why the accounts thus heretofore filed by him, and all proceedings thereon should not be stricken from the record, and why he should not transfer and deliver to your petitioner, administrator cum testamento annexo of the estate of Charles E. Meurer, deceased, all the moneys, goods and chattels which have come into his hands by reason of his wrongful and illegal administration of the said estate, in order that the said-estate may now be administered and a settlement made thereof .according to law.
    Edward E. I. Meurer filed a demurrer to the petition. 1st. 'That the accounts had been adjudicated and confirmed absolutely -more than five years previously. ■ 2nd. That the Court has no •jurisdiction to order the transfer of assets which have been ¡admástered. 3rd. That the Court has no jurisdiction to strike 'from the records an account of an administrator, which has been •duly adjudicated and confirmed more than five years before.
    He also filed an answer, in which he alleged that the will in •question was given to him after he had been appointed adminis•trator by -'Christian Grimsey, a friend of his father’s, who told him it was no good, as his mother was dead. (The will gave all his estate .to his wife, and made her executrix.) The Court sustamed the demurrer, and dismissed the petition, but delivered no. opinion. Schmitt then appealed to the Supreme Court.
    
      F. J. Geiger and Wm. W. Porter, Esqs. for appellant
    argued that E. E. I. Meurer having concealed the will, his acts as administrator were null and void.; Daniel’s Chancery Practice, No. 1584; Williams on Executors, No. 518; Act of February 24th, 1834, P. L. 76, Sect. 68; Redfield on Wills, 108. The administrator is entitled to have these void proceedings stricken from the record; Pa. & N. Y. R. R. Co. vs. Bunnell, 81 Pa. 414; Beck’s Estate, 5 W. N. C. 274; Bucknor’s Estate, 7 W. N. C. 470; Holyoke vs. Haskins, 9 Pickering 259. The Orphans’ Court may order Meurer to deliver the assets of the estate to the administrator ; Abbott vs. Reeves, 49 Pa. 502; Mussleman’s Appeal, 65 Pa. 480; Bell’s Appeal, 71 Pa. 465; Getts’ Estate, 2 Ash. 441; Piening’s Estate, 15 W. N. C. 384.
    
      Charles Davis and F. L. Breitinger, Esqs., contra,
    argued that the appellee did not conceal the will, but produced it before the Register without any citation. The petition was properly dismissed ; Willard’s Appeal, 65 Pa. 265; Brinker vs. Brinker, 7 Pa. 55. The Court will not grant a review after five years; Neill’s Appeal, 9 W. N. C. 190. The Court will not withdraw money from the hands of those entitled to receive it, in order that it may be immediately paid over again by a rightful authority; Bradford’s Case, 1 Browne 89.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the Orphans’ Court on April 14th, 1885, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam.

There was no error in sustaining the demurrer to the petition. No fact was averred to justify the Court in disturbing the account duly filed, properly adjudicated, and confirmed absolutely, more than five years before the petition was filed. It is very clear that the Court ought not to strike all those proceedings from the record.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant. .  