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 3, Page 159   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

GAITHER VS. GAITHER. 159
city of the testator at the time of its execution, are admissible in evidence
against the will, where the validity of the will is the question to be tried.
But the declaration of a deceased attesting witness as to the contents and
operation of the will are inadmissible; the will must speak for itself: nor
are they admissible to show that a fraud was practised upon the testator
in obtaining the will.
Parol evidence is inadmissible to show that the draftsman of the will was
mistaken, and the testator designed something not fully expressed.
[William Plummer executed his will on the 6th of Septem-
ber, 1834, by which he devised two tracts of land to Beale
Gaither, " to him, his heirs and assigns for ever." The testa-
tor died in January, 1836. Beale Gaither, on the 4th of
October, 1840, executed a deed by which, in consideration of
natural love and affection, he conveyed various tracts of land,
including that devised to him by said will, to his three daugh-
ters, Susan, Ellen, and Mary Ann, and died intestate, in the
year 1849. On the 6th of June, 1850, the complainant, the
son of said Beale Gaither, filed the present bill, in which it is
alleged and charged, that said Plummer was about to execute
his will, whereby he was about, and told said Beale Gaither
that he designed to devise to complainant and his brother
William, the said land in fee, but that on said Plummer's so
stating his purpose and design, said Beale Gaither, who was
the reputed son of said Plummer, told him that complainant
and said William were then young, and unable to take care of
themselves and of their property, and that it would be better
to devise the said property to him, the said Beale, and the
said Beale promised and agreed with the said Plummer, that
if he would devise said property to him, he would, when com-
plainant and said William became old enough to take care of
it, give it to them, or that he would give it to them at his
death. And that, upon the representation of the said Beale,
and his said undertaking to hold the said property in trust
for the benefit of complainant and said William, the said
Plummer, relying upon the same, actually devised the said
property to the said Beale, and to his heirs and assigns for
ever. That it was the purpose and design of said Plummer

  		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 3, Page 159   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  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives