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

SPENCER VS. SPENCER. 4
I am of opinion, therefore, that the act of limitations is no
bar to this claim as pleaded by the complainants, either as to
the real or personal estate of William Spencer.
In further answer to this plea, the defendants contend, and
with much force, that as the complainants read the credits en-
dorsed on the contract between Isaac and William Spencer, for
the purpose of getting the benefit of them, they are thereby
precluded from relying upon the defence of limitations, the last
of these credits being aa late as January, 1822.
The third question presented by this record, and argued by
the solicitors, has relation to a credit claimed by the defend-
ants for moneys paid by them under the decree in the case of
Spencer vs. Pearce, reported in 10 Gill & Johns., 294. To
this claim for a credit, go far as concerns the money received
by the late William Spencer, the Chancellor understands there
is no objection; but the complainants insist that no credit
should be allowed for the amount which was lost by what is
alleged to have been the neglect of Isaac Spencer and his rep-
resentatives in suffering the land sold to Terry by William
Spencer to remain in the possession of the former from 1822,
when William Spencer bought it at the sheriff's sale, to 1839,
when it was sold under the decree of the Court of Appeals.
The Chancellor has examined this question, and he thinks
the defendants are not entitled to this credit. There was, in
this respect, he thinks, a want of that diligence which a trustee
is bound to exercise when he undertakes a trust. The cases re-
ferred to in 2 Williams on .Executors, 1110, are believed to sus-
tain this position.
The fourth question which I am called upon to decide is,
whether Isaac Spencer is to be charged only with the $5000
for which he sold what is called the "Crompton Estate," in
September, 1831, or with $10,000, which it is alleged he was
offered or might have sold it for at aa earlier period.
As however, the order which I am about to pass will direct
the value of the estate after deducting the debts to be ascer-
tained as of the year 1822, there does not appear to be any
necessity for the expression of an opinion upon this point.

  		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 467   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