clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 368   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

868 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
HENRY H. BROWN
vs.
ROBERT STEWART AND OTHERS.
ROBERT STEWART
vs.
HENRY H. BROWN.
MARCH TERM, 1849.
[SETTLEMENT——COMMISSIONS TO ADMINISTRATORS——EVIDENCE——LIMITATIONS.]
A SETTLEMENT between parties accompained by a sealed obligation of one to
pay the balance found due by the settlement, must be regarded as concluding
all antecedent transactions between the parties, unless it can be shown by
proof that it was founded upon mistake or was procured by fraud.
Agreements transferring the right to administer upon an estate to a third party,
in consideration of receiving from such party the commissions, are, against
the policy of the law.
But an agreement between two parties, both equally entitled, that a joint ad-
ministration shall be taken out, and that as the principal labor and respon-
sibility was to be borne by one, the other would be content with such por-
tions of the commissions as his associate should think he deserved, is valid.
Where there are two executors, both are equally entitled to commissions, and,
in the absence of any express agreement, neither can deprive the other of
his share, upon the ground that the party claiming the whole has performed
the entire labor of settling up the estate, but by an agreement inter sese
they may provide for an unequal division of the commissions, or that one
shall have the whole.
It may be shown by parol evidence which of two parties to a pecuniary obli-
gation, binding upon both, is the principal debtor, so as to adjust the equities
as between themselves.
The act of limitations does not apply to the claim of one of two administra-
tors, against the estate of his intestate; he cannot sue himself at law.
[A statement of the facts of these cases and of the allega-
tions of the bills and answers will be found in 1 Md. Oh. -De-
cisions, 87, where the first opinion of the Chancellor is reported.
Thos. R. Cross, the party upon whose estate Brown & Stewart
jointly administered, was the father-in-law of each. The pro-
ceedings in the case subsequent to the filing of the opinion pre-
viously reported, are sufficiently stated in the following opinion
of the Chancellor.]

  		clear space
clear space
white space

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 368   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

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.

©Copyright  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives