|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SIMMONS v. TONGUE. 349
On the 30th of April, 1829, the auditor filed a report, in which
he stated that he had examined all the proceedings and had stated
all the claims filed against the estate of Thomas Tongue, deceased;
and also an account between the said estate and the trustee, in
which the proceeds of sale were applied to the trustee's expenses,
the allowance to the widow in lieu of the trustee's commissions,
the costs of suit, and dividends on all the claims which had been
then exhibited. That claims No. 4, 7, 8, 21, 50, 52, 61, 72, 86,
87, 92, 101, 114, 115, 117, and 124, were not proved agreeably
to the act of 1798, ch. 101. That the affidavits annexed to claims
No. 5, 41, 56, 58, 86, 91, and 119, admit claims in bar, the
amount of which, however, were not stated. That the defendants
had filed a copy of the list of debts due to the deceased which
was returned by his administrator to the Orphans Court; and from
that list it appeared that there were accounts which ought to be
discounted in bar of claims No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 22, 29, 31, 35, 39,
42, 43, 49, 57, 87 and 101. That claim No. 47 appeared to be
for cash paid the deceased in discharge of a note given by the
present claimant to the deceased; and was, therefore, clearly in-
admissible. That claim No. 52 was the joint note of the de-
ceased, and one T. T. McPherson. A moiety only of which
should be allowed, unless evidence should be furnished of the in-
solvency of McPherson; or that he was a surety for the deceased.
That claim No. 90 was the single bill of the deceased and John
Collinson, and liable to a similar objection. That claims No. 67,
68, 69 and 70, were for the deceased's drafts on B. D. & R.
Mullikin, and accepted by them. No proof had been exhibited
of the insolvency of the acceptors. It was also objected, that the
original acceptances ought to be produced. That claims No. 108,
109, 110, 111, 112 and 113, were for the deceased's drafts on N.
C. Dare, and accepted by him. There was no proof of the ac-
ceptor's insolvency. That claim No. 91 was for the deceased's
draft on J. Sparrow in favour of Gassaway Pindall, which was
paid by the acceptor. The acceptance was legal evidence that the
drawer had funds in the hands of the acceptor; and no proof to
the contrary had been exhibited. That claim No. 123 accrued
since the death of the deceased. That claim No, 127 was origin-
ally a partnership debt It was now filed, but not proved as a
separate debt. That claims No. 128,129,130,131,132 and 136,
were debts due from the firm of Tongue & McPherson, and of T.
T. McPherson & Co., of which the deceased was a partner; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
