|
|
|
|
|
|
|
POST v. MACKALL. 499
solute judgment against the executor or administrator, although it
must be deemed conclusive of a sufficiency of personal assets, as
between the creditor and the executor or administrator; yet it
shall not be so held as between the creditor and the heir or devisee,
so as to exonerate the real estate; but that an insufficiency of the
personalty may be shewn by the creditor for the purpose of letting
himself in upon the realty, (m) And it has also been laid down,
that a plea of the statute of limitations shall only enure to the
benefit of him who pleads it under a creditor's bill; and conse-
quently, in this case, where the statute of limitations can be sus-
tained as a bar to any claim, it can only be allowed so to operate
as to exclude them from coming in conflict with, or receiving any
thing to the prejudice of the claim of him by whom the statute of
limitations was pleaded, (n)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(m) The State v. Cox, 2 H. & G. 379; Iglehart v. The State, 2 G. & J. 245;
Gaither v. Welch, 3 G. & J. 259; Ellicott v. Welch, 2 Bland, 247.
(n) MCCORMICK v. GIBSON. —This bill was filed, on the 19th of January, 1824,
by James McCormick, jr., against Fayette Gibson, Edward R. Gibson, Nancy Gib-
son, Rebecca Gibson, Thomas P. Bennett and Harriet his wife, Joseph W. Rey-
nolds and Ann his wife, James Tilton and Frances his wife, Clara Tilton, Nehe-
miah Tilton, Rigby Hopkins, John W. Blake, Edward Lloyd, and the President,
Directors and Company of the Farmers* Bank of Maryland.
The object of the bill was to have the real estate of Jacob Gibson, deceased, sold,
because of the insufficiency of his personal estate, for the payment of the amount
then due on a promissory note given by him for $2, 500, which had, by several en-
dorsements, passed into the hands of the plaintiff. On the 10th of November, 1824,
the defendant James Tilton, put in his answer. On the 27th of September, 1824,
the defendant Edward Lloyd, filed his answer. On the 12th of October, 1824, the
Bank made answer, stating its defence; and shewing, that it held, as a security for
its claim, a mortgage given by the deceased, of his tract of land called Marengo; but
the deed of mortgage contained no relinquishment of the right of dower of the wife
of the grantor; nor any personal covenant for the payment of the money.
On the 4th of February, 1825, the defendants Bennett and wife, filed their answer,
in which, among other things, they say, 'that they have always well hoped and be-
lieved, that the personal estate of the said Jacob Gibson, together with the proceeds of
the sales of the property by him devised to be sold, and the rents and profits of the
real estate, as directed by the last will and testament of the said Jacob Gibson, to be
applied towards the payment of his debts, would have been amply sufficient to dis-
charge the same, and all expenses of administration, had the administration thereof
been conducted according to the intentions of the said Jacob Gibson as expressed in
few said will; but these defendants allege and say, that the said personal estate of
the said Jacob Gibson, or the greater part thereof, was retained and not told till
nearly two years after his death, and thereby a considerable loss was incurred by the
estate; that the real estate retained by the executor was greatly mismanaged by him,
and the profits thereby considerably diminished j that the land purchased from
Samuel Y, Garey and wife, which was ordered to be conveyed to Henry Grace, in
case he would pay the price or purchase money contracted by him to be paid to the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
