|
|
|
|
|
|
|
218 WILLIAMS' CASE.
sold to Cornelius Shrive for the price of twelve thousand dollars
payable as follows: three thousand dollars payable on the first of
May then next; and the balance in four yearly payments, that is,
two thousand dollars a year for the first three years, and three
thousand dollars the fourth year, to be secured by bonds with good
sureties, bearing interest from the first day of May, 1829; from
whom he had also received $400 for rent, after deducting his
account for repairs.
The trustee further reported, that he had, on the same day, sold
the residue of the estate called Ceresville, containing four hundred
and seventy-nine and a half acres and eight perches, to Charles W.
Johnson, at the price of fifty dollars per acre, on the following
terms: six thousand dollars to be paid on the first day of May
then next, and the balance to be paid three years from the first
day of May next, with interest from that date payable annually
thereon, to be secured by bonds with two good sureties, &c. &c.
That the amount of the sales, exclusive of the rents not due which
were passed to the vendors, was thirty-five thousand nine hun-
dred and seventy-seven dollars and fifty cents. And, that the
wood lot yet remained unsold. These sales were finally ratified
on the 6th of July, 1829.
The widow and petitioner Susan F. Williams, filed an affidavit
of a person, not interested in the case, in which it was testified,
that she was then, on the 16th day of July, 1829, between forty
and fifty years of age, and that she then enjoyed and was in full
and good health. Upon which she submitted the case, that a pro^
portion of the proceeds of the sales might be allowed to her in lieu
of her dower in the real estate which had been sold.
17th July, 1829,—BLAND, Chancellor.—As regards the propor-
tion of the proceeds of sale to be awarded to the widow, as the
present value of her dower, which is the matter now submitted for
determination, there is a material difference between the rule pre-
scribed by the acts of Assembly and the rule of this court. I had,
on considering this matter, thought it would be well to have but
one general rule, which should apply indiscriminately to all eases;
and, as the court could not in any way depart from the express
provisions of the act of Assembly, I suggested the propriety of
obtaining from the General Assembly an act, which should estab-
lish such a general rule of apportionment as would embrace all
cases. A more for that purpose was made in the Senate; (n) and
(n) Journal of the Senate, 6th and 18th of February, 1826.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
