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

HITCH VS. DAVIS. 077
to receive on account of her legacy to be $1,736 30; and the
complainant's first exception insists that Davis should be
charged with interest on this aum from the time the same was
in his hands and payable, until the same was paid on the 20th
of June, 1844. It appears by the defendant's vouchers 1 and
2, that he purchased for Mrs. Hitch, on the 18th and 20th of
June, 1844, bonds of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Com-
pany, amounting together to $1,736 30, being her proportion
of the assets in the hands of Davis, as executor of Solomon
Betts, as shown by the accounts in the Orphans Court, and
the question raised by the exception is, whether the com-
plainant is not entitled to interest on this sum from an earlier
date than June, 1844, when the investment was made.
The rule is, that when no time is fixed by the will for the
payment of a legacy, it will bear interest from the expiration
of one year after the death of the testator. Craw vs. Barnes
and Fergusson, 1 Maryland Chancery Decisions, 151. Mr.
Betts, the testator, died in November, 1841; and as no time
was fixed by his will for the payment of the legacy, I am of
opinion that the complainant is entitled to interest upon it
from the end of a year after the death, and this exception,
therefore, must be ruled good.
The account B, reported by the Auditor, shows that the de-
fendant has overpaid the trust estate, and that it is indebted
to him in the sum of $56 77; but this account, as already
stated, is erroneous in not charging him with interest on the
sum of $1,736 30, from the period mentioned; and it more-
over credits him with the sum of $313 49, for which no
vouchers have been produced, and this credit constitutes the
ground of the complainant's third exception. The Chancellor
understood, in the course of the argument, that this exception
would be waived, and the credit allowed to stand; but I do
not find that this has been put upon the record. But as the
case must go again to the Auditor, an opportunity will be had
for such admissions and agreements as the parties may choose
to make, or for the production of proof in support of the credits,
if necessary.
VOL. III.—19

  		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 277   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  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives