Maryland case law › Murray & Sansom v. Ridley

Murray & Sansom v. Ridley

3 Md. 171 (1793) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: Other✓ Good law
HoldingThis case involved a dispute over the priority of debts owed by a decedent, Mathew Ridley, and the proper distribution of his estate by his administratrix.

The Court gave the following opinion : 1. The state, by common law, is entitled to a preference of ail debts unless on record, from Mathew Ridley. 2. All debts due from M. Ridley to private persons before the 11th of March, 1786, are to be paid by the administratrix according to the act of 1715, c. 39. 3. All debts contracted by M. Ridley with private persons since the 11th of March, 1786, are to be paid to all creditors, whether foreigners or citizens of this or any of the United States, without any preference as to the nature of their debt, except by judgment obtained against Mathew Ridley in his lifetime. 4.

That all bonds, whether to citizens or foreigners, before the 11th of March, 1786, are to be preferred in payment by the administratrix, to bonds executed since the 11th of March, 1786. At October term, 1793, the following form was adopted by the court, to wit: And for that the said C. by her pleas aforesaid, doth not deny but that the writing obligatory aforesaid mentioned in the declaration of the said Murray and Sansom, is. the deed of the said Mathew Ridley, nor but that the 176 debt aforesaid in the said writing contained, is a just debt, yet unpaid and not satisfied or discharged; and hath said nothing in bar or preclusion of the action aforesaid of the said M. ÍS? S., but the matter aforesaid by her the said C. above pleaded and stated in the case aforesaid filed between the parties in this cause, and that she hath no goods or chattels which belonged to the said M. at the time of his death, come to her hands, except goods and chattels to the value of the sum of 1,587/. 19i. 4d. current money, to be administered, and which are bound, liable to, and charged, in the first place, with the payment of the said debt due to the state of Maryland, and to the said debt due to the said William Vanderstegen from the said M. in the pleas and case aforesaid mentioned: and the court here being of opinion on the said pleas and case stated, that the said C. ought in the first place to pay and satisfy, out of the assets in her hands, or that shall hereafter come to her hands to be administered, of the estate of the said M. R. the debt due aforesaid to the said state of Maryland, and in the next

This is a preview of Murray & Sansom v. Ridley. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.