|
|
|
|
|
|
|
396 PRICE v. TYSON.
The defendant Isaac admits, that his intestate was his brother;
and that he did know, in the life-time of bis intestate, that he had
a dispute with the plaintiff's intestate in relation to a claim for
freight which he heard and believed had been referred to arbitra-
tion; and then adds, that he was fully under the impression, that
it had been finally settled or abandoned.
The defendant Moses answering for himself, says, that he sup-
poses from his intimacy with his intestate during his life-time, that
he was acquainted with the existence of a dispute between him
and the plaintiff's intestate, but he has no particular recollection
of it; that he has no recollection of the reference of any dispute
between them to arbitration; and then he adds, that if he had any
knowledge of such dispute or reference, his belief now is, that he
considered it to have been finally settled in the life-time of said
Tyson.
The defendants severally deny that they made or caused any
inquiries to be made in relation to the claim of the plaintiff's intes-
tate until after the 10th of October, 1821, when the distribution of
the surplus of their intestate's estate was made; and they aver,
that they did not, prior to that time, employ any one to inquire
into the situation of the plaintiff's suit. And to the whole of what
these defendants had said, by way of a joint and several answer,
they added, that from the time of granting letters of administration
to them on the personal estate of the said Nathan Tyson, until and
after the time of making distribution of the said personal estate
herein before mentioned, they had no notice, information, inti-
mation, or recollection, that any action was pending in Harford
County Court, or elsewhere, against the said Nathan Tyson, or
against these defendants as the administrators of his estate, at the
suit of the said John Price or of the complainants.
Immediately after this answer was filed the plaintiff put in his
exceptions to it, alleging, that all those various matters which the
defendants had impertinently introduced into their answer, in addi-
tion to what he conceived were expressly called for by the bill,
ware foreign from his inquiries, as well as the account exhibited
with the answer as a part of it; all of which he therefore prayed
might be expunged as being wholly irrelevant and impertinent
And the plaintiff also objected, that what the defendant Mary had
said in relation to the agreement about the freight, was inadmissi-
ble and improper; because the contract between the said Price
and Tyson for the freight of the said vessel, being in writing, and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
