Volume 5 — Gill & Johnson's Maryland Reports

On the 30th of June, 1810, a decree was obtained in this court, for the sale of the real estate of one Richard Jordan, deceased, situate in Saint Mary's county, for the payment of his debts, upon a bill filed for that purpose, by a certain Samuel Coombs; and James Cook, since deceased, was appointed a trustee to make the sale.

This was an action of Assumpsit. The declaration contained three counts, upon a guaranty by Catheral, the appellee, upon the note set out in the evidence, in conformity with the endorsement thereon. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and issue was joined. 1. The plaintiff, at the trial, proved the following promissory note :—•“ $ 110. Twelve months after dato I promise to pay Mary Thomas, one hundred and ten dollars, for value received. Baltimore, October 22d, 1820.

Debt on single bill—Plea, payment, and an account in bar. This case was before in this court, and will be found in 3 Gill and Johns. 455. It was then reversed, and sent down with a procedendo. At the second trial, the plaintiff (the appellee) read in evidence to the jury, the following single bill, executed by Josiah Turner, the appellant, and one Henry Turner, since deceased. “$303 75.

The appellants, John Bradley and Jane his wife, (formerly Jane Jack,) filed the present bill against the appellee, Jesse Hunt, administrator of William Jack, on the 20th of April, 1831.

<p>It is in general, the duty of the Orphans Court to determine the commissions of an executor or administrator, by allowing a per centage upon the inventory of the deceased’s estate; and that includes, in an enlarged construction, all the assets accounted for.</p> <p>One of the limitations to the exercise of the discretionary power of the Orphans Court, prescribed by the act of 1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 10, sec. 2, is, that the court shall not allow a less rate of commission than 5 per cent, but this only applies to those cases, where there has been a full administration by the first executor or administrator.</p> <p>Under the act of 1820, ch. 174, taken in connexion with the act of 1798, in cases of partial administration, where there is a further administrator to be paid for services, the court may allow such compensation to the first administrator, as the services performed actually merit. They may give one per cent, or even less; whatever is allowed must nevertheless be a per centage on the whole assets. This is the only standard under the law, whereby to ascertain his commissions.</p>

This was an action of Debt, instituted by the appellee, against the appellant, on the 21st of March, 1825.

The present bill was filed by the appellant, Elijah Hicks, against the appellees, Charles G. Hicks and Thomas A„ Norris, on the 23d of May, 1828. The complainant alleged, that in the year 1818, he borrowed from the appellee, Charles G. Hicks, the sum of $500, for which he was to pay an interest at the rate of nine per centum per annum, and that he gave his bond or note, for the amount of the loan.

This was an action of Ejectment commenced by the appellant against the appellees, on the 17th day of April, 1880, for an entire interest in several tracts of land lying in Prince George’s county. There was a pro forma judgment by the county court, upon a case stated, for the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals.

This was an action of Debt, instituted by the appellees, against the appellant and James Kemp, on the 13th of June, 1837, in an appeal bond, dated June the 13th, 1833, in the penalty of $850, in which Kemp was the principal, and the appellant his surety. The judgment of the County Court on the demurrer being for the plaintiffs, the defendant, Sasscer, brought the record by appeal to this court.

This was an action of Assumpsit commenced by the appellee, against the appellant and one Seth Hyatt, merchants, trading at Washington, under the firm of Seth Hyatt Co. on the 24th of November, 1827. The appellant only, was taken upon the capias. Issue was joined upon the plea of non-assumpsit. 1.

The present bill was filed by the appellant, Margaret Ann Steiger, Adm’r C. T. A. of Mary Steiger, against the appellee, (Thomas Hillen,) on the 21st of September, 1827. It alleged that Andrew Steiger, the former husband of Mary Steiger, was in his life-time seized and possessed of certain parcels of land, now within the limits of the city of Baltimore.

Action of Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered brought by Owings if Piet vs. Low. This ease was decided by the Court of Appeals at June . term, 1826, 7 Harr, and Johns. 124, reversing the judgment of the County Court in favor of the defendant, upon the appeal of the plaintiffs, the present appellants, and sending the case back with a procedendo. 1.

This was an action of Debt, instituted on the 5th of August, 1830, by the appellant against the appellee, on a single bill, dated October the 7th, 1824, for $172. 79. The pleadings in the cause are fully set out by the júdge who delivered the opinion of this court. 1.

Cross Appears from Baltimore County Court. These were actions of Covenant instituted by Thompson & Bathurst, against the Insurance Companies, on the 17th March, 1824. Thompson died pending the causes. Issues were joined upon the pleas of non infregit conventionem. The following statement is from the record in the case of the Maryland Insurance Company, from which the other is not supposed in principle to be distinguishable.

This was an action of Covenant, instituted by the appellants, against the appellees on the '7th February, lSS1?, on an agreement dated the 12th September, 1825.

On the 25th of January, 1831, a Caveat was filed in the Orphans Court of Montgomery county, by the appellant, as the next kin of a certain Thomas Cramphin, then lately deceased, against the admission to prohate, of a certain paper writing, executed on the 30th June, 1824, purporting to be the last will and testament of said Cramphin, and two codicils thereto, dated respectively on the 1st of November, 1824, and the 14th of October, 1825, which had been exhibited by the…

A statement of this case was given by the Judge who delivered the opinion of this court, as follows, viz: The bill states that Thomas Clagett, one of the defendants, having a short time previous to the 22d of September, 1827, engaged in business in the city of Baltimore, as a merchant, the complainant agreed and undertook to give credit to, and to become surety and endorser on notes drawn by said Clagett, in the prosecution of his said business to the amount of $10,000; and…

CjRoss Appeal from the Court of Chancery. The amended bill, which was filed in 1831 by the appellant in the first case, and Thomas M’Elderry, since deceased, and which by agreement was received as an original, and in lieu of the first bill, filed in September, 1806, stated, that before the 10th of February, 1794, a parcel of ground situate in the then town, now city of Baltimore, and opposite Harrison street, beginning in Baltimore street arid running thence, &c. of the…

The present bill was filed by the appellant, Robert Hickley, permanent trustee of Thomas J. Clagett, on the 1st of October, 1829.

This was an action of Assumpsit, instituted by the appellant against the appellee, and E. S. Buchanan (who died pending the suit) on the 30th of June, 1830. Issue was joined upon the plea of non-assumpsit, and errors in pleading on both sides, were waived by agreement. 1. It was proved at the trial, that George Torrance and E. 8. Buchanan carried on a large manufactory near Baltimore, through the sole agency of James A. Buchanan.

This was an action on the case, instituted by the appellant on the 18th April, 1831, against the appellee, the sheriff of Anne Arundel county, to recover damages for the escape of a negro man, the slave of the plaintiff, who had been committed to the defendant’s custody for safe keeping. Issue was joined upon the plea of not guilty.

This was an action of Debt, instituted bj the appellees against the appellant, on the 22d of March, 1828, on a bond signed and sealed by “Robert Armstrong fy Co.” in favor of “Robert Robinson fy Co.” bearing date on the 18th May, 1837, in the penalty of $5000, to be paid in three months from the date thereof, conditioned as follows. “The condition of this obligation is such, that whereas several difficulties exist in the settlement of monied and commercial concerns, between…

Appeal, from Baltimore City Court. This is an action of Debt instituted by the appellees against the appellant, January 22d, 1833, to recover the sum of $200, in virtue of an ordinance of the 9th of March, 1826; whereby it was “enacted and ordained, that no person or persons should thereafter erect, establish, or rebuild, or carry on in such building within the limits of direct taxation, any distillery of spirits, or turpentine, or varnish, or manufactories either of earthen…

This bill was filed on the 15th of February, 1823, by Elizabeth Birely, the testatrix in her life-time, and Nicholas Holtz against the appellees. It stated that Jacob Staley, deceased, on the 16th of October, 1821, was indebted to the complainant by notes, single bills and bonds, to a large amount.

Arpead from St. Mary’s County Court. On the 27th of August, 1828, the appellees instituted the present action against the appellant, for a libel on the plaintiff’s wife. The defendant pleaded a justification as to part, and not guilty as to the residue of the words laid in the declaration.

The appellee, who is one of the heirs at law of Francis Williams the testator, brought the present Ejectment against the appellants, who claim under Francis Williams, the devisee, on the 6th of October, 1828.

The appellees on the 17th August, 1829, became sureties for a certain Nathan Walton, in a ne exeat bond in the penalty of $6000, conditioned, “that the said Walton shall not go, or attempt to go, or depart from the State of Maryland, without the leave of the Harford county court, for that purpose obtained.” A final decree was subsequently made in the cause, in which the ne exeat issued, ordering Walton to bring into court the sum of $5540; upon the bringing in of which sum,…

Arread from the Orphans Court of Baltimore county. In this case a petition was filed by the appellant, Thomas Hunter, against the appellee, on the 1st of June, 1832, stating that by the last will of John Macartney, Jr., Hugh Thompson, Nathan G. Bryson, the appellee, and Thos. Humes, of Baltimore, were appointed trustees of all his property in America.

This was an action of Assumpsit, instituted on the 14th of July, 1830, by the appellees, Thomas W Harris, John Parran, and Robert H. Smith, trading under the firm of Harris, Parran fy Co. against the appellants, as the executors of Richard Grahame.

The appellee on the 4th of April, 1831, sued the appellants, James Kent and Daniel Kent, as admr’s of Daniel Kent, in Assumpsit, to recover the value of certain services rendered to their intestate in his life-time, in August, 1827. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and limitations.

This was an action of Debt, instituted by the appellee, against the appellant, on the 14th of March, 1829, upon a judgment obtained by the plaintiff, against the defendant, in Montgomery connty court, in the State of Pennsylvania. The declaration contained four counts, in each of which the judgment ef the court in Pennsylvania, was averred to be, for $215 88£.

This was an action of Debt instituted by the appellee, against the appellants, and one E. M. Dorsey, on the 30th of July, 1831, on a bond, bearing date the 7th of August, 1830, in the penalty of $5000, with the following recital and condition. “Whereas by a decree of Prince George’s county court, bearing date the 27th day of July, 1830, the said Edwin M. Dorsey was appointed trustee, to sell certain real estate, the property of a certain Walter B. Brooke, contained in a…