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

WHITE VS. DONNELL AND HOWARD. 533
she should devise the same, the general rule was enforced, and
the legatee denied interest until after the year, the Judge
remarking, " that he could read no more in the articles than
a general direction that the estate should be distributed, ac-
cording to this will, upon the decease of the testatrix, which
could only mean in a reasonable time, and did not supersede
the general rules of legal interpretation." And in the case of
Webster vs. Hall, 8 Ves; 410, where the direction in the will
was that the legacy should " be paid as soon as possible," the
Master of the Rolls (Sir William Grant) decided, " that the
legatee was not to receive interest except from the" end of
twelve months from the death of the testator;" " that the exe-
cutors were not bound to pay upon the very day of the testa-
tor's death, nor was there any precise day upon which they
ought to have paid the legacy."
But though the general rule in regard to the time when a
pecuniary legacy shall commence to carry interest, when no
time of payment is provided for by the terms of the will, is
thus inflexibly established, there are exceptions to the rule as
firmly settled as the rule itself, and one of these exceptions is,
when the legacy is given by a parent to a child, or where the
testator stands to the legatee in loco parentis, and the latter
is otherwise unprovided for, for then, whether a future time is
fixed for the payment or not, interest will be allowed from the
death of the testator, upon his presumed intention to perform
his moral obligation to maintain his child, or the person towards
whom he has placed himself in the relation of parent. But if
other funds are provided for the support of the legatee, then
whatever may be the relation in which the testator stands to
the former, the general rule applies. The exceptions are
stated and proved in the case of Sullivan vs. Winthrop et al.,
before referred to by numerous authorities, and neither can
nor have they been questioned.
In this case it is undeniable that another and ampler fund
was provided for the maintenance of the complainant, Mary,
by the provisions of her father's will, and it is admitted that
the injunctions of this will have been by the defendant, Donnell,
Vol. III.—35

  		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 533   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