|
|
|
|
|
|
|
POST v. MACKALL, 525
0f limitations in opposition to claims No. 5, 6, 7, and 8; that the
claimants No. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, by their exceptions filed on the
27th of March, 1831, relied on the statute of limitations in oppo-
sition to claims No, 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 32, and 33; that on the 25th of
January, 1832, the claimants No. 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21,
23, and 24, by their exceptions, relied on the statute of limitations
as a bar to claims No. 5, 6, 7, and 8; and that on the same
day the claimants No, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, relied on the statute of
limitations in bar of the claims No. 34, 35, 36, and 37.
But from what has been said in relation to these claims it ap-
pears, that although the claims No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 14, 25, and 27,
may be benefited, they cannot be injured by the application of the
statute of limitations; that claim No. 4, on account of its priority
of lien; and claims No. 7, 30, and 31, because of their being
altogether excluded, cannot be, in any way, affected by the statute
of limitations; and, therefore, since no man can, without utility to
himself, be allowed capriciously to disappoint another of his just
rights, they cannot be permitted to rely on it, either as a pretext
for their own protection, or to the prejudice of any other claimant,
Consequently, in marshalling the assets, in reference to the statute
of limitations, as relied on, these four claims No. 4, 7, 30, and 31,
must be entirely laid aside.
The leading objects, in arranging these funds, are to produce
the greatest amount of satisfaction to each of the several creditors,
allowing to each his just rights; to give to the most active those
preferences and advantages which the law always awards to dili-
gence; and to avoid any such conflict of interests as may prevent
a distribution of the whole in such manner as to leave any one
unsatisfied, so far as the assets will go, or as may deprive any one
of his due proportion. Therefore, if conflicting pleas of the sta-
tute of limitations can be no otherwise adjusted, that which has
been first filed must be allowed first to operate; and where pleas of
the statute of limitations have been filed by different creditors, on
the same day, so as to have a countervailing operation against
each other, they must both of them, so far as they so operate, be
rejected.
With regard to the account of the defendant Louis Mackall, as
administrator de bonis non, it is clear, that all taxes, due on the
real estate of an intestate, at the time of his death, must be paid
by his administrator, as public charges entitled to a preference in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
