| Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 209 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
CARTER. VS. CALVERT. 209 much ability, there can, I think, be no reasonable doubt that the settlement between the elder Mr. Calvert, and his daughters, Mrs. Carter and Mrs. Stuart, made in the year 1836, was in- tended to be, and was considered on all hands, as a full and final adjustment of all the claims of the daughters against their father for, or in respect of, moneys and property which had come to his hands from the executors of their maternal grand- father. The evidence on this point, both documentary and oral, is too conclusive to be susceptible of misapprehension, and I am quite satisfied that when, in 1816, it was agreed to refer to Messrs. Coxe & Bradley certain matters then in difference between Messrs. Carter and Stuart and Mr. Charles B. Calvert, as the legal representative of his father, George Calvert, then deceased, it was not the understanding of the two first named gentlemen, that the settlement of 1836, was one of the subjects to be submitted to the arbitrators. And in truth the evidence shows very clearly that Mr. Charles B. Calvert himself, re- garded the settlement in question final until the execution of the arbitration bond, which, as he stated to Dr. Stuart, "he thought opened the whole question as to the first claims as well as to the last, that is, those which were due by his father before his death, and which were included in the settlement of 1836, as well as those which became due after his death." That Mr. Charles B. Calvert, at the time of the execution of the arbitration bond, was under the impression that the sub- jects of the paternal, as well as maternal, successions were to be submitted to, and would be examined by, the arbitrators; there can, therefore, be no doubt, but it is equally apparent, that he formed this impression not from any understanding, agreement. or negotiation between himself and the opposite parties prior to the execution of the bonds, but from the terms of the bonds themselves, which he thought opened both questions, and re- quired the arbitrators to re-examine and correct, if found to be erroneous, the settlement of 1836. This, of course, was the im- pression of Mr. Charles B. Oalvert, but there is not, in my opinion, the slightest ground for supposing that the other par- ties to the submission entertained similar views. Certainly |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
| Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 209 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives