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 4, Page 149   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

THOMPSON AND WATERS VS. DORSEY. 149
ALFRED W. THOMPSON AND
JONATHAN A. WATERS ET AL
vs
MARGARET A. DORSEY ET AL.
SEPTEMBER TERM, 1853.
[PARENT AND CHILD—LIMITATIONS—ACT OF 1849, CH. 234—GIFTS INTER VIVOS
OR MORTIS CAUSA.]
A FATHER is bound to educate and maintain his infant child, and if another
person performs this natural duty for him, with his knowledge and consent,
the father is liable to pay a reasonable sum to such person.
To such a case the Statute of Frauds has no application, for the debt is the
debt of the father and not of the son, and therefore is not an attempt to
charge him with the debt of a third person.
Where the real estate of an intestate is sold for the payment of his debts, the
operation of the Statute of Limitations, so far as the heirs at law are con-
cerned, is suspended for the apace of eighteen months from the death of the
intestate, by the act of 1849, ch. 224.
A party shortly before liis death delivered a note due him to a friend, with
directions to collect and apply it to certain purposes for the benefit of his
wife, but died before the money collected was so applied. HELD—that this
does not amount to a gift inter vivas or mortis causa, and the proceeds of the
note belong to the estate of the deceased.
[The bill in this case was filed by creditors against the widow
and administratrix, and heirs at law of Rinaldo Dorgey, de-
ceased, charging the insufficiency of the personal estate to pay
his debts, and praying for an account from the administratrix,
and for a sale of the real estate for that purpose. After answer
admitting these allegations, a decree for a sale was passed, and
an account ordered. The property was sold, and the proceeds
brought in, and on the 22d of February, 1853, a petition was
filed in the case by John Warfield of Joshua, Margaret G.
Warfield, and Ann Pierse, sotting up several claims against the
estate, that of said John Warfield being principally for board
of the son of the intestate, from the 13th of September, 18S9,
to the 13th of May, 1850, at $50 per annum, making $533 33.
The other claims, and the proof in support of them, are suffi-
ciently stated in the ChanceIIor's opinion. The petition further
charges that the said administratrix has omitted to return several
debts, claims, &c. due the estate of her intestate, especially a
note of G. Slothower for $80, payable to the intestate.

  		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 4, Page 149   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