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

464 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
has been sold in aid of the personalty, and as appears by the
report of the Auditor, a considerable surplus of the proceeds
of the realty remains for distribution among the heirs-at-law,
which by said report has been equally distributed, no deduction
being made from the shares assigned to said Martha and
Heloise, on account of the property so advanced to them.
And the petitioners pray that the accounts may be remanded
to the Auditor, with directions to restate them, so as to bring
the said advancements into hotchpot with the residue of the
said estate now to be distributed.
The answer of Heloise Smith and her husband, George H.
Smith, may be treated as denying the allegation of the ad-
vancement to the wife, though its statements are not very
explicit or satisfactory. But, conceding that it does deny the
allegations, I consider the proof of the advancement quite
strong enough to overthrow the answer, and I am also of opi-
nion, that if the property so advanced to Mrs. Smith, in case
any of the personal estate remained for distribution, was equal
to or superior in value to her share of such surplus, she would
be excluded unless she brought it into the reckoning. Act of
1798, eh. 101, sub-ch. 11, sec. 6, State use of .Wilson and Wife
vs. Jameson, 3 G. & J., 442.
Martha Young being dead, the petition setting up the ad-
vancement to her, which consisted of real and personal estate,
has been answered by her executor, devisees, and legatees,
and certain parties claiming under a deed executed by her on
the 20th of March, 1848, for the purpose of indemnifying one
of them from responsibility, as her surety in her bond as admi-
nistratrix upon the estate of her father. It is objected, on the
part of the respondents, that inasmuch as it does not now, at
this time, certainly appear, whether the surety in the bond will
or will not be damnified, the proceeds of the real estate should
not be impaired or withdrawn from the control of the trustees
under the deed, until the final settlement of the estate of the
said intestate shall show conclusively that no such loss or
damage will result to the surety. They say that when the
responsibility was assumed, and the deed of indemnity was

  		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 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  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives