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 374   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

374 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
putation of delay, it has been said that Stcwart had no motive
to press his claim against the estate of Cross, so long as Brown.
forebore to proceed against him upon the mortgage, his purpose
being to set one off against the other. But these claims were
not of that character that one could be set off against the other,
and if they could, it seems strange that Stcwart should be -will-
ing to leave the business open so long, Brown holding his sealed
obligation, secured by mortgage, and he having nothing what-
ever to establish his right to a set-off, his title thereto, and of
course his only security resting upon the memory of witnesses
who might die or be absent or forgetful.
Still, it is possible that this is to be attributed to his negli-
gence, and not to a consciousness of the infirmity of his claim,
and, therefore, I am not disposed at this time to press the pre-
sumption too strongly against him, but will leave this question
open to be reported on by the Auditor, and will give the parties
leave to take further testimony before him, or before a justice
of the peace in the usual way.
That limitations is no bar to this claim, is shown by the case
of State, use of Stevenson vs. Reigart, 1 Gill, 1 and 32.
The counsel may prepare a decree in conformity with these
views.
A. RANDALL, for Brown.
STOCKETT and ALEXANDER, for Stewart.
Note by Reporter.—The agreement referred to by the Chan-
cellor as being considered obnoxious to objection by the Court
of Appeals in the case of Owings vs. Owings, 1 H. & G., 492,
was, where a widow declined to administer on her deceased hus-
band's estate, and permitted the brother of the deceased to ob-
tain such letters, upon consideration that he would pay her all
the commissions which should be allowed him by the Orphans
Court. In the case of ex parte Young, adm'x of Young, S
Gill, 285, the court say, the right to administer cannot be dele-
gated. Judge Frick, in delivering the opinion in that case,
says: "The appointment and the rights of administrators are

  		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 374   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