| Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 571 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
INDEX. 571 LIMITATIONS— Continued. make for the former. Third—All other debts of the grantor at that time contracted which the grantee might consider just, legal and equitable, and fourth—The expenses of the trust. The grantor died in 1837, and the grantee not having sold the property, a bill was filed in 1842, by the creditors of the grantor, under which all his real estate was sold for the payment of his debts. HELD— That the claims of the grantee within the terms of the deed, and with reference to the proceeds of the property thereby conveyed, are not liable to the plea of limitations, but with regard to the proceeds of any other property of the grantor they are so liable. Gibbs vs. Cunningham, 322. 6. The act of limitations does not apply to the claim of one of two admin- istrators, against the estate of his intestate; he cannot sue himself at law. Brown vs. Stewart, 368. 7. The act of 1849, ch. 224, suspending the operation of the act of limita- tions in certain cases ia prospective, and not retrospective in its ope- ration. Shepherd vs. Bevans, 408. 8. Where an executor is himself the creditor of the estate, limitations will not bar his claim, for he cannot institute suit against himself for the recovery of the debt. Spencer vs. Spencer, 456. 9. By our testamentary system, the executor or administrator alone can plead limitations to claims against the personal estate of the de- ceased. Ib. 10. A trust in a will to pay debts, against which the statute of limitations has run at the death of the testator, will not revive them; but the trustee alone has the authority to plead it. Ib. LOCATION OF BOND OF CONVEYANCE. 1. The home line of tract of land as described in a bond of conveyance ^ was, "thence down said branch to the beginning." HELD— That this line must be run with the meanders of the branch, and not in a straight line to the beginning. Smallwood vs. Hutton, 95. LUNATIC LUNACY. 1. If the committee of the person and estate of a lunatic has given a well secured bond for the faithful administration of his trust, and is in other respects a fit person to have the custody and estate of the luna- tic, his insolvency, in fact, (not having taken the benefit of the insol- vent laws,) is not cause for removal. Estate of Loriman Chew, 60. 2. Expenditures for stationery do not come within the range of disburse- ments, which a committee or receiver is permitted to make at the ex_ pense of the estate. Estate of Rachel Calvin, 126. 3. The first allowance is for costs of the commission, which includes lega costs with counsel fees paid by the petitioner in conducting the in. quisition of lunacy, under which the party is found to be a lunatic, these are all allowed unless excluded by a previous order of the court, Ib. 4. Fees paid to counsel for conducting a controversy, as to whether the lunacy did or did not commence at an earlier date than the filing of |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 571 View pdf image (33K) |
|
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.
Maryland State Archives