|
|
|
|
|
|
|
492 POST v. MACKALL.
No. 1, 2, and 3, which are stated to the amount of $4, 695 72 are
on the joint and several obligations of the deceased and Edmund
Key, who is responsible for the moiety thereof. And claim No. 6,
is against the deceased as an endorser for Edmund Key, and is
stated to amount of $1, 469 51. And claim No. 27, is against
the deceased as surety on a bond which is stated to amount of
$6, 099 61. The auditor thinks, that the amount of the claim No.
30, if established, should be retained to answer any sum which
may be recovered against the deceased's estate on account of claims
No. 6, and No. 27, or the moiety of claims No. 1, 2, and 3, for
"which the defendant Edmund Key is liable. The defendant Ed-
mund Key, by letter to the auditor, has also advanced a claim, on
behalf of his wife Margaret J. Key, for the value of certain negroes,
her separate property, which were sold by Benjamin B. Mackall,
the former administrator, and applied to the use of the estate of the
deceased. No proof has been offered to sustain the claim; nor
any data from which the auditor could state the probable amount.
The auditor proposes when the proper materials are furnished to
state the claim as No. 31. And lastly, that claim No. 33, is not
proved in the usual manner.
The auditor further says, that no proof had been furnished to
him of the assets in the hands of Benjamin B. Mackall, surviving
administrator, from which he could state an account. The defen-
dant Louis Mackall, the administrator de bonis non, has filed cer-
tain papers from which the auditor has stated an account A.; such
as he supposes would be desired by him. But to the items of that
account No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, the auditor objects; because,
they are for moneys paid by the administrator in full of judgments
recovered by creditors of the deceased against the administrator,
as he understands; whereas the personal estate appears to be defi-
cient, and therefore dividends only of said claims should be al-
lowed. No. 10, and 11, are for payments made to The Bank of the
United States on account of its claims. As the payments are less
in amount than the dividends which may be allotted to the Bank
on its claims, they ought to be allowed, But it does not distinctly
appear, that credits have been allowed to it for those payments,
There is no evidence of the payment of the sum of $16, and $75,
for officer's fees in 1824, and 1829; and the auditor is unable to
determine, from the papers before him, whether the allowance of
$124 97 to be retained for officer's fees, yet due, is correct. There
is no proof, that the negroes for whom an allowance is claimed, to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
