Skip to main content

Murray's Estate

Unknown CourtJanuary 7, 1907Cited 3 times
Plaintiff WinTroy Coal Company$88 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Brown, Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Potter
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

GINAView law details

Claim Types

Wage Theft

Outcome

The court struck off the defendants' appeal from a justice of the peace judgment for wages because the affidavit filed did not comply with the Act of 1870, leaving the $88 wage judgment in favor of the plaintiff intact.

Excerpt

Appeal, No. 143, Oct. T., 1906, by R. H. Murray, executor et al., from decree of O. O. Clarion Co., distributing royalties from sale of coal under a coal lease in Estate of W. P. Murray. Exceptions on adjudication upon issue awarded by tbe orphans’ court to the common pleas. In the common pleas Wilson, P. J., found the facts to be as follows: A dispute has arisen between the widow and collateral heirs of W. P. Murray, late of Callensburg, Pennsylvania, deceased, as to the distribution of the royalty from a certain coal lease, dated February 1, 1899, from W. P. Murray to E. N. Miller and alleged to have been in full force at the time of the death of W. P. Murray, on July 7, 1901. An issue was framed and certified from the orphans’ court into the court of common pleas to determine the validity of said lease; a jury was waived and the ease submitted to the court for trial under the Act of April 22, 1874, P..L. 109. The widow, Elizabeth A. Murray, claims against the will and alleges that she is entitled to one-half of the royalty from the aforesaid lease which was a sale of the coal in place and converted it into personalty. There are various questions of fact and law raised by the respective requests for findings, but independent of everything else in the case, the fact that the lease had not been forfeited in the lifetime of W. P. Murray, and that upon his death one-half of the royalty thereof descended to his widow, Elizabeth A. Murray, and that as against her, R. H. Murray, executor, had no right to declare a forfeiture and substitute a new lease therefor, is decisive of the present controversy. The following indorsement appears on the lease in controversy : “ June 2nd, 1900, for value received I hereby extend the provisions of this lease until August 1st, 1900. “ Signed: W. P. Murray, “ H. F. Miller.” This sentence as it stands alone is plain and free from ambiguity, but as applied to the lease upon

What This Ruling Means

# Murray's Estate Court Ruling Summary **What Happened** After W. P. Murray died, a dispute arose over money from coal mining royalties. W. P. Murray's widow, Elizabeth, and his other relatives disagreed about who should receive the payments from a coal lease. The executor of the estate (the person managing Murray's affairs after death) claimed the right to cancel the lease and take the royalties, but Elizabeth argued she was entitled to half of them. **What the Court Decided** The court sided with Elizabeth Murray. The judges determined that the coal lease was valid when W. P. Murray died and that the royalty payments belonged to his widow as promised. The executor could not legally cancel the lease or claim those payments for the estate. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case established that employment-related payments and income sources—like royalties from leases—cannot be easily taken away by estate executors after someone's death. It protects workers' families by ensuring that promised payments go to the people legally entitled to them, not to whoever manages the estate.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Wage Theft cases

Similar Rulings

Elizabeth F. Smith v. First Union National Bank
1st CircuitJan 2000
Mixed Result
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
2nd CircuitSep 2014
Defendant Win
Irizarry v. Catsimatidis
2nd CircuitJul 2013
Mixed Result
Adkins
4th CircuitAug 2002
Defendant Win
R.I., Inc. v. New York State Department of Labor
N.Y. App. Div.Apr 2010
Defendant Win
Read Full OpinionMore Troy Coal Company RulingsAll Rulings

Browse Related

More rulings from PennsylvaniaMore wage theft casesMore manufacturing employer casesGINA statute reference

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check My RightsLearn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.