Mandru v. Ashby

Henry, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant was an intervening petitioner in a creditor’s suit instituted in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, in Equity, by Mary Lovering and others against the appellee, the bill praying that a deed from Jordan L. Stanley to the appellee be set aside and that the property conveyed by said deed, or so much thereof as may be necessary, be sold for the payment of the debts of the decedent. The deed was set aside by the Court, the property sold and the claims of the creditors, originally suing, were satisfied and paid, but the claims ⁶⁹⁴ of the appellant, who was duly admitted as a co-plaintiff by the Court, were rejected, and from the decree she has appealed to this Court. Her claims against the estate of Jordan L. Stánley are based upon two notes, filed as exhibits with her petition, and which are as follows: $241.00 ‘‘Canton, O., July 3rd, 1896.

Ninety days after date, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of Mrs. Louisa Mandru two hundred and forty-one dollars with interest at the rate of 8 per. cent, centum per annum, at Strasburg, Ohio, interest payable annually, and I hereby authorize any attorney at law to appear in any Court of Record in the United States, after the above obligation becomes due, and waive the issuing and service of process and confess a judgment against me in favor of the holder hereof for the amount then appearing due together with costs of suit, and thereupon to release all errors and waive all rights of appeal. J. L. Stanley (Seal).” The second note was as follows: $7.00 September 8th, 1892. One day after date I promise to pay to the order of J. Mandru seven dollars at Value received. J. L. Stanley.” On the back of this note was the following endorsement: “Pay to the order of Louisa Mandru.

Simon Mandru Executor of Jos. Mandru, — without recourse. ” It was admitted by the defendants that these notes were duly executed by Jordan L. Stanley, and it was satisfactorily established by proof that' no payment had been made on either of them. The defense interposed to each is the plea of limitations, and as to the second of said notes, which is not under seal, it is conceded that such plea is a bar to the right of action. The note for $241.00, however, is under seal.

The creditors bill was filed January 21st, 1905, and the petition of the appellant was filed August 29th, 1905, or less than ten years after the maturity of the note. The defendants took no testimony of any kind, but from the opinion of the Court (Merrick, J.) printed in the record, we take the following: “These notes were made in Ohio, where as shown by the statute, read to the Court, private seals were