TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dorsey v. Dorsey

Dorsey v. Dorsey, 6 G. & J. 12 (1833)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Maryland · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 15, 1833
Judges
Archer, Buchanan, Dorset, Stephen
Citations
6 G. & J. 12
Headnotes
In equity the act of limitations may be taken advantage of, where the defendant alleges that he relies upon, and pleads in bar a certain act of the General Assembly made at a session, &e. entitled “an act for limitation of certain actions,” &c. and prays to have the full benefit of the some at the hearing.
Summary
Appeal from the Court of Chancery. The object of the original bill filed in this cause, was to obtain a decree for the sale of the real estate of Lanncelot Dorsey, who died in 1829, and a division amongst his heirs of the proceeds of sale. A decree passed, and a sale was made, reported, and ratified. Afterwards Dennis Dorsey, the appellant in this cause, and one of the heirs, filed a petition claiming to be a creditor, and to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale, upon the ground of the insufficiency of the personal estate, upon which no administration had been had, as the petition alleged. Ilis claim consisted of a single bill for $ 130, payable on demand, dated the 19th December, 1812; and an open account for services rendered by him to Launcelot Dorsey, for the period of seven years and eight months, commencing on the 20th December, 1812, at the rate of $90 per annum. On the single bill several payments were endorsed, the last of which was in September, 1825, and the following agreement proved to have been signed by the appellant, at the request of the obligor. “I do hereby agree, that I will not put the within note in suit against Launcelot Dorsey, nor call on him to settle the same, nor give it in the power of any other person to do the same, so long as he shall live, provided the within note shall not be near out of date.” Dathan Dorsey, and Elder and wife, the other heirs of Launcelot Dorsey, and the appellees here, by their answer denied the -justice of the appellant’s whole claim, insisting that it had been paid and overpaid, and they relied on the statute of limitations, in the following terms. “They further show cause, rely on, and plead in bar to the petitioner’s claim, a certain act of the General Assembly of the then Province now State of Maryland, made at a session of Assembly held at the city of Annapolis, the 26th day of April, 1715, entitled, an act for limitation of certain actions for avoiding suits at law,’ and pray to have the full benefit of the same at the hearing.” Depositions were taken and filed, and the cause submitted to Bland, Chancellor, who on the 6th of March, 1832, dismissed the petition with costs. From this order, the case was brought on appeal to this court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Buchanan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Buchanan, Ch. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The petition of the appellant was properly dismissed by the Chancellor.

If the claim set up has any foundation in fact, it is clearly barred by the act of limitations, which is sufficiently pleaded; there being no promise or acknowledgment proved, express or implied, sufficient to take it out of the act.

But independent of that bar to his claim, it does not appear to be sufficiently made out in proof. On the contrary, he would appear to be himself a debtor to the estate, if he did not pay to his father the proceeds of the crops made upon the land while he lived with him, which it is proved came into his hands, together with the amount of sales of wagon stuff, rails and timber, and of the product of the farm during the time he lived upon it, after his father’s death, all of which he received.

And the only proof on that subject (in the words of the witness) is, “that his father always demanded of him an account of the sales of the product of the farm,”, but no evidence that he made any payment on that account.

DECREE AVVIItmD WITH COSTS.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1913: 119132026peak 1913 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Shorter v. Dail89 A. 329 (Md. 1913)

Most recent

  1. Shorter v. Dail89 A. 329 (Md. 1913)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list