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

464 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
made immediately after his death, instead of postponing it un-
til after the payment of his debts ? Why, indeed, say anything
at all upon the subject of debts, when the estimate, according
to the argument of the complainants, was to be made, wholly
irrespective of them ?
Upon this first point, then, I am of opinion that the estimate
directed to be made by William Spencer of the value of his es-
tate, was not to be made irrespective of his debts, but that the
sum, to a portion of which the complainants are entitled, is to
be ascertained by deducting from such estimate the amount of
the debts.
The next point discussed has reference to the credit of
$17,534 52, allowed in the additional account passed on the
31st of July, 1835.
To the allowance of this credit a number of objections are
urged.
1st. It is insisted that the devise to Isaac by William
Spencer, is to be taken as a satisfaction of this debt upon the
principle that where a debtor bequeaths to a creditor a legacy
equal to or exceeding the amount of his debt, it shall be pre-
sumed, in the absence of any intimation of a contrary inten-
tion, that the legacy was meant by the testator as a satisfaction
of the debt.
Though such a rule as the above does prevail in courts of
equity, it is certain that it has been much censured, and that
very slight circumstances have been permitted to rescue par-
ticular cases from its operation. I am of opinion that some
one or more of the exceptions to the rule as stated in 2 Wil-
liams on Executors, 805, 806, apply to this case, and that con-
sequently the devise to Isaac Spencer is not to be regarded as
a satisfaction of the debt due him. See also Partridge vs.
Partridge, 2 Har. & Johns., 63; and Owings vs. Owings,
1 Ear. & Grill, 484, 491.
It is also insisted that this claim ia barred by lapse of time,
and the act of limitations relied on by the complainants.
I am clearly of opinion, that so far as the personal estate is
concerned, the objection cannot be sustained, as the creditor

  		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 464   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  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives