|
|
|
|
|
|
|
POST v. MACKALL. 491
her, 1823, for $4, 025, endorsed by Christiana Mackall, Louis
Mackall, Rebecca Mackall, and Christiana Mackall, these being
the widow and all the heirs of Benjamin Mackall competent to
sign, which was reduced to principal $4, 000, and interest there-
on paid to 5th of August, 1826; on which day the note became
due, and has been lying under protest ever since. It is also stated,
that this debt is secured by a deed of trust on three and seven-
eighths acres in Georgetown, executed subsequent to that given to
secure claim No. 4. This claim, No. 8, is not proved in the usual
manner.
The auditor further says, that the claims No. 9, 10, 12, 13, 14,
15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 28, are evidenced by short
copies of judgments recovered against the deceased administrator,
and should be allowed as against the personal estate; but they are
not proved as against the real estate. Claim No. 29, is also ad-
mitted by the administrator, but is not proved as against the real
estate. The proof of claim No. 11, is a short copy of a judgment;
George Biscoe and George W. Biscoe v. John P. Greenfield, which
is entered for the use of Robert W. Bowie, with the affidavit of
said Bowie in the usual form. It is stated that this judgment was
superseded by Edmund Key and the deceased; that a scire facias
was issued and judgment recovered against the principal and his
sureties. The auditor thinks a short copy of the last judgment
should be produced with the affidavits of the original creditors and
the assignee; and proof of the insolvency of the original debts.
The insolvency of Key is established by the pleadings in this case.
The auditor further says, that the claim No. 27, is on the bond
of Edmund Key and the deceased. The insolvency of Edmund
Key is supposed to be established by the pleadings. The claim
No. 30 is not proved. And upon the circumstances stated by the
claimant himself, the auditor thinks it cannot be proved as a claim,
against the estate of the deceased. Edmund Key, the claimant,
states, that he held a judgment against a certain William Thorn-
ton, which he assigned to Benjamin B. Mackall, administrator of
the deceased, to pay certain endorsements of Benjamin Mackall for
him. He afterwards agreed, that Louis Mackall, the administrator
de bonis non, might apply the sum of $400, part of the proceeds of
the judgment, to the payment of a claim of The Bank of the United
States against the deceased; and he therefore claims to be substi-
tuted in the place of the Bank, and to be considered as a preferred
creditor to the amount of that payment. The plaintiff's claims
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
