.MzU0Mjk.MTIzNTEy

From Transcribe Wiki
Revision as of 15:35, 16 June 2021 by Sbagley (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Conn's Exor. vs } In Chancery Conn and others

Case Raphael Conn in the fifth clause of his last well and testament emancipates and sets free all his slaves and proceeds to mention them by name, in the sixth clauses of his will bequeaths to his niece Mary Conn a portion of his household and kitchen furniture amounting to three hundred dollars in addition to other personal property given to her by the testator in his lifetime and the remainder of his personal property after deducting the specific legacy to Mary Conn to be applied to the payment of his debts including rents &c. The question presented by the bill is whether in case the personal property belonging to the estate of the testator, should prove insufficient for the payment of the debts including the specific legacy to Mary Conn, the negroes should be hired out until the heirs should amount to sufficient to pay the legacy to Mary Conn. The defendants in their answer contend that a the legacy to Miss Mary Conn is specific the asset on her part to the sale of it by the executor before it was rendered absolutely necessary for payment of the debts of the testator is such a waiver of her right to this specific legacy that she cannot at this late period claim to be referred out of the hires of the negroes-it further prays a settlement of the administration account & that the court will decree that when the debts shall have been paid off that the exor. shall [illegible] them from [illegible] It seems to me to be all important in the cause that as a [illegible] step to the fair adjustment of the rights of the parties that the admr. account should be first settled in order to ascertain what amount of assets yet remain in the hand