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

THOMPSON AND WATERS VS. DORSEY. 151
Dorsey renewed a note previously given to Mrs. Pierse, when he
told the latter that he could not ascertain the amount of other
moneys which he owed her without a reference to his books,
which were at Dr. Worthington's. He came over a few days
afterwards for the purpose of settling the open account, but
stated that he had mistaken the key and could not get his
books. He promised to go to Baltimore to see Mrs. Pierse
and give his notes for the amount, but he never saw Mrs. Pierse
afterwards. These moneys she had given him an order on Mr.
Charles F. Mayer to receive for her.
The other testimony is sufficiently stated in the opinion of
the Chancellor delivered upon the hearing of this petition.]
THE CHANCELLOR:
This case is submitted upon the petition of John Warfield of
Joshua, and others, filed on the 22d of February last, the an-
swer thereto of Margaret A. Dorsey, administratrix of Rinaldo
W. Dorsey, and the proof in relation to the claim set up by the
petitioners, taken under the order passed upon said petition.
The claim of John Warfield seems to me to be sufficiently
proved, 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. The proof is conclusive to
show that John Warfield did board the son of Rinaldo W. Dor-
sey, and that he knew and approved of it. The Statute of
Frauds has no application to such a case. The debt is the debt
of the father and not of the son, and therefore it is not an at-
tempt to charge him with the debt of a third person.
But limitations are pleaded, and this defence covers and de-
feats a large part of the item of board. The charge for board
commences on the 13th of September, 1839, and ends on the
13th of May, 1850. Limitations, therefore, bars the whole
charge except that portion which accrued within three years
from the time of filing the petition on the 22d of February,
1853. But with regard to the heirs at law, the operation of
the statute i8 to be suspended for the space of eighteen months

  		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 151   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