Difference between revisions of ".MTY4MjY.Njc4MjQ"
m (Protected ".MTY4MjY.Njc4MjQ" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
Latest revision as of 07:33, 21 April 2020
(2) for the devastavit of the Exr. which has already been ascertained for a large amount, should be made a party to this suit. And if the assets which may be ascertained to be in the hands of the Exr should be found upon a proper settlement of his accounts to be sufficient for the payment of all the debts, there should be a decree directly in favor of the creditor agt the Exr. and his surety, and the plaintiff declared to be free. 5. It is further insisted that the Exr. of Thomas Brooks should be held and charged, in his individual capacity with all costs incurred in these various suits since the first day of Jan. 1844. For on the 25 April 1843 there was a decree against him in favor of F. Brooks Admr. for $400 with interest from May 23, 1825, and on the 1st of Jany 1844, upon a proper settlement of his accounts he had more than enough in his hands to satisfy this decree and thus put an end to the litigation. Not having done what he ought to have done, he should bear the loss arising from his own delinquency. 6. It is difficult to perceive any ground in this case for charging the Exr. of Garland with the value of the plaintiff. But as it is the part of prudence to provide against all possible contingencies, he insists in the last place that the valuation by the Commissioners