|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WILLIAMS' CASE. 201
until they should attain such age or marry, (d) By another spe-
cial act, passed at the same session, after reciting, that Caleb
Davis had died intestate, leaving but very little personal estate;
seised of one tract of land containing two hundred acres; and of
another parcel containing ninety-nine acres; which were not, and
could not be rented for more than sufficient to discharge the an-
nual assessment; and leaving four infant daughters, who were
greatly distressed, and who could not be educated, or maintained,
unless by a sale of their inheritance; it was directed, that the
land should be sold; that the interest of the purchase money
should be applied to their education and maintenance; and that
the principal should be divided and paid to them as they respec-
tively arrived at the age of sixteen, (e) By another special act, it
was stated, that Joseph Walker died intestate, seised of an im-
proved lot of ground in Pig point, which would have then sold
for one thousand pounds; but, from a decay of the improvements,
since that time, had been so reduced in value, that its rents were
wholly unequal to the necessary repairs; that the son and heir at
law of the deceased, being then but four years old, before he ar-
rived at full age the lot would be of no value. Whereupon it
was directed, that the lot should be sold, and that the money
arising from the sale should be put out at interest for the benefit of
the heir. (f)
In another special act it was set forth, that several lots of ground
in Baltimore town, which had descended to, and been made over
to three infants, were then useless to them, and very heavily bur-
thened with taxes; but would be of great advantage to the said
children if leased out on ground rents for ninety-nine years renew-
able forever. Whereupon it was directed, that the lots should be
leased with the approbation of the Orphans Court, (g) It was
stated in a special act passed on the petition of Sarah Parran, that
her husband Richard Parran died seised of two tracts of land, one
in Calvert, and another in Charles county, and personal estate to
a considerable amount; that at the time of his death he was much
indebted, and left the petitioner his widow, and three daughters;
and that it would be for the benefit of the children to sell the land
in Charles county, to save a part of the personal estate; where-
(d) November, 1781, ch. 4.—(e) November, 1781, ch. 15; 1804, ch. 10.—
(f) 1784, ch. 28.—(g) 1784, ch. 31; 1794, ch. 5; Evroy v. Nicholas, 2 Eq. Ca.
Abr. 488; P— v. Bell, 6 Ves. 419; In the matter of Starkie, 3 Cond. Chan. Rep. 79,
26 v.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
