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

490 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
executor to all right, so far as the sales should be applied in
lieu of and in anticipation of that fund. As executor, he, of
course, was entitled to receive the fund, and there could have
been no necessity for substituting him for that purpose, and the
only object of the agreement was to enable him, after paying
the debts of the deceased out of the property and money which
were thereby made applicable to that purpose, to reimburse
himself. That is, if the Virginia fund had been collected and
with it the debts of the testator paid, Mrs. Bland would have
been entitled for life to the property and money bequeathed to
her, and if Mayo had sold that property and taken that money
in trust for the parties entitled in remainder, he must have paid
Mrs. Bland interest on the amount for life. But as her prop-
erty and the money were taken, it was the design of the agree-
ment to that extent that Mayo should hold the Virginia fund
in lieu of it, and pay her interest upon it for life.
It was, however, subsequently discovered, that the Virginia
fund was not sufficient to pay the debts of the testator, and con-
sequently, according to the opinion I have formed of the char-
acter of the bequest to Mrs. Bland, the property embraced in
that bequest, was liable to supply the deficiency. Certainly, so
far as the cash on hand and salary are concerned there can be
no difference of opinion on the subject, for no one can say the
bequest so far as those items are concerned is specific.
When this discovery was made does not appear, but it does
appear that some time after the statement, No. 4, was made,
Captain Mayo refused to pay the semi-annual interest, and re-
fused and instructed his counsel to refuse to give the judgment
by which the payment was to be secured.
In this state of things, and after some negotiation between
the counsel of the parties, it was agreed that a case should be
docketed, by consent, and judgment confessed, subject to an
agreement filed in Anne Arundel County Court, on the 25th of
October, 1849, whereby it was stipulated that the damage should
be relieved on payment semi-annually of the interest on the sum
mentioned in the statement before referred to. But it was also
expressly agreed, "that the judgment was rendered in settlement

 
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 490   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