|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRICE v. TYSON 395
each other concerning the said claim or action; from the time of
the death of the said Nathan Tyson until after the 10th of October,
1821, when the distribution was made of the personal estate of the
said Nathan Tyson as aforesaid; and these defendants further say,
that the said John Price continued to live and reside in the said
city of Baltimore, until after the said distribution was made; and
did not depart this life as these defendants are informed and be-
lieve, until the 14th of October, 1821.
The defendant Mary answering for herself, admits, that she as
the widow of her intestate, was entitled to one-third of the surplus
of his personal estate, and alleges, that after paying off all the just
claims exhibited to the administrators; she had retained her dis-
tributive share, and further, that she knew, in the life-time of her
husband, early in the year 1815, that an agreement was about to
be made between the said Nathan Tyson and John Price, relating
to the freight of a quantity of flour of said Tyson's, which was to
be transported in a vessel of said Price from Baltimore to some
island of the West Indies; and then she adds, that being present
at a conversation between the said Tyson and Price on that sub-
ject; Price observed, that he considered it to be only reasonable
and just, that the freight should be reduced to a peace rate, if it
should be known before the vessel which was to carry the flour
mailed from Baltimore, that peace was made between the United
States and Great Britain; and that he was willing such a condi-
tion should be inserted in the contract for the freight of the flour
to be transported; and the said Price and Tyson in that conver-
sation, entirely agreed in the opinion expressed by them in regard
to the reduction of the rate of freight in the event of peace being
known in Baltimore to have been made before the sailing of
Price's vessel; and it was then, as she understood, agreed be-
tween them, that it should form a part or condition of their agree-
ment for freight.
The defendant Mary further answering, admits, that she learned
from her intestate, that in consequence of a dispute, the plaintiff's
intestate had brought suit against her intestate for the whole or
some part of the freight of the flour; that she did know, that the
dispute had been referred to arbitration, but did not know, that it
was not settled; and then adds, that the impression made upon
her by the knowledge, that such reference had been made, as
well as from the fact, that she heard nothing on the subject after-
wards, was that an end had been put to the suit as well as to the
dispute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
