¶1affirmed the decree of the Chancellor and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the distributive share of the respondent was due and payable, whilst the amount of the judgment bond from him to the testator, would not be due and payable for several years yet; and if the decree had been duly executed by him, it would have been no defence to the action for the legacy, because it would not have then been payable.
7 Del. 95
Hayes v. Hayes
Decided June 15, 1859
Supreme Court of Delaware · decided 1859-06-15
<p>If an administrator cum téstamete annexa has obtained a decree in Chancery against a legatee of the testator, for the execution of a new judgment bond given by the former to the latter payable several years hence, but which cannot be found after his death, it will not be a sufficient ground for enjoining an action on his administration bond against him by the legatee for his legacy as soon as it is due, notwithstanding the latter has failed to comply with the decree, and has removed from the State with his effects, pending the suit, to avoid the performance of it.</p>
Decided 1859-06-15