Appeal from the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

The bill, in this case, filed on the 8th of June 1857, by the appellants against the appellees, alleges, that before the intermarriage of the complainants, the said Mary loaned money to the said Ann, who had a separate estate, consisting of real and leasehold property, to assist the said Ann in improving her property; that a part of the money was returned and the note of the said Ann, for $62.32, was given to the Said Mary for the balance, and the bill prays that the said Ann may be decreed to pay this note out of her separate estate, and for general relief.

The defendants, in their answer, admit the borrowing of the money and its application to the payment for improvements on the said Ann’s property, and the execution of the' note for the balance due, but they deny that the money was borrowed for that purpose, and they allege that the said Mary, before her marriage with the said Edward, boarded with the defendants and was indebted to them on that account, in the sum of $71.37, for which said sum the defendant, Peter Fallen, recovered a judgment on warrant before a Justice of the Peace, against the complainants, Lane and wife, which is still unpaid and unsatisfied¡ and which the defendants plead in tar to any claim the complainants may have against them, or either of them, and they deny the power of the said Ann fo contract in maimer and form as alleged by the complainants,- or that she intended to charge her separate estate, or that the same is responsible at law or in equity for this pretended claim of the complainants.

A general replication was filed to this answer, and a commission to take testimony was issued, under which it was, among other things, proved, by the magistrate who rendered the judgment against Lane and wife at suit of Peter Fallen, that, within the time prescribed by law for taking appeals, the attorney for the defendants gave notice of an appeal from, this judgment aud an intention to file a bond, but never did so. The deed of trust, under which the defendant, Ann Fallen, cl&iiiis her separate estate, conveys a house and lot to a trustee, ain trust, nevertheless, for thé sole and separate use and benefit of the said Ann Fallen, without the let or control of her present, or áriy future husband, and with full power and authority to her, whether sole or covert, to sell or otherwise dispose of the same by any instrument of writing in the nature of a deed or will.-” The court (Krebs, J.) on passing the decree appealed from, delivered the following-opinion:

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress