Berry v. Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church

Mason, J., delivered the opinion of this court. An attempt was made by counsel, in the course of theii? ⁵⁷⁹ argument, to reflect upon the motives and conduct of the respective parties to this record. We can discover in the facts before us no warrant for any accusations against either the complainant or defendants, in the course which they have pursued in this transaction, but on the contrary we regard both as being in court with clean hands. The material facts, as alleged by the complainant in his bill, and as they are proved or admitted, are, that in 1839 R. W. Bowie sold an estate to the appellant, and executed to him a bond of conveyance, and in conformity therewith the latter executed and delivered to said Bowie his three several bonds, each for $6666.66f, payable at different periods.

Upon the two bonds last falling due judgments were confessed, one at April term 1843 of Prince Georges county court, and the other one year after. The judgment on the bond preceding the last was assigned to the convention of the Episcopal Church, the appellees in this proceeding. After this assignment the appellant paid to said Bowie the amount due upon the last judgment. The bond of conveyance stipulated, on the part of Mr. Bowie, for a title free from all incumbrances; no deed was in fact ever executed.

The bill proceeds further to charge that Bowie is dead, leaving a large, but incumbered property, and that his estate is insolvent; and that Mr. Bowie’s widow has fried a bill against the appellant, claiming dower out of the property so sold him by her husband, and that he is advised that she has such a right, and that it is a valid incumbrance thereon; and that if she recovers the same, he will be unable to indemnify himself out of the estate left by Bowie ; that the assignee of said judgment holds it subject to all the equities existing between him and Bowie at the time of the assignment, or arising out of his subsequent death, and his widow’s refusal to relinquish her dower; and that, as against said assignee, he is entitled to deduct from the judgment the value of the dower aforesaid, but that said assignee is about to issue execution on said judgment, and ought to be enjoined; and that Catharine Bowie ought to be enjoined from prosecuting her claim for dower ⁵⁸⁰ till,relief shall be done to all parties; and he tenders, if desired, the money due on the judgments to be brought into court. He further states that Bowie left a will, and that letters thereon have been granted to Judge Tuck; and that his widow has refused to take, in lieu of her dower, the real estate therein bequeathed to her ; and that a part of his real estate is devised to his executor to be sold for his debts ; and that another part is devised to his nephew', Robert Bowie, in trust for her daughters, Caroline, wife of Osborn Sprigg, and Priscilla, wife of Richard L. Ogle, and another part devised to I. L Bowie, his son; and that the daughters and son, above mentioned, with Robert Bowie, are the only children and heirs? at-law of said Robert W. Bowie, and are all parties to this proceeding. The convention had notice that the judgment assigned to them was for land purchased by the appellant from Mr. Bowie. Mrs. Bowie subsequently sustained her claim to dower, and the question is, can the sum thus recovered by her be discounted from the judgment now held by the convention?

The