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

294 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
been an unwarrantable usurpation of the jurisdiction of the
Orphans Court.
The question, then, is whether the time has now arrived
when this Court may let go its hold of the personal estate of
the deceased, taken into its possession, as we have seen, merely
to preserve it from destruction or diminution, and this raises
the question of the extent of the authority of the administrator
pendente lite. There can, I presume, be no doubt of the
authority of this Court to protect the property of an intestate
or testator, by appointing a receiver pending a litigation in
the Ecclesiastical Court for probate or administration. It was
assumed by Lord Eldon as free from doubt, in the case King
vs. King, 6 Ves., 172, and though apparently to some extent
shaken by Lord .Erskine in Richards vs. Chave, 12 Ves., 462,
it has been fully and firmly established in subsequent cases.
See Edmunds vs. Bird, 1 Fes. & Bea., 542; Atkinson vs.
Hens/law, 2 Fes. & Bea., 85; Ball vs. Oliver, ib., 96. The
Court, in such cases, proceeds upon the ground that the pro-
perty is in danger, because it may get into the hands of per-
sons who have nothing to do with it; and it will not forbear
to appoint a receiver, because the Ecclesiastical Court may
provide for the collection of the effects of the deceased by
granting letters pendente lite. This is the conclusion of the
cases refered to, and is asserted to be the rule in 1 Williams
on Executors, 339, 340 (2 Am. Ed).
Having then the power to appoint a receiver, pending the
litigation in the Orphans Court for probate or administration,
although that Court, by granting administration pendente lite,
might provide for the collection of the effects, the question
remains, will this Court continue the office of receiver after
the Orphans Court has actually made such appointment?
The ground, as stated by Lord Eldon in King vs. King, upon
which the Court proceeds in appointing the receiver pending
the litigation in the Ecclesiastical Court is, " that the property
is in danger in this sense, that it may get into the hands of
persons who have nothing to do with it." But this observation
is, of course, inapplicable to the case of an administrator pen-

  		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 294   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