Case ID: ohio-ch_1/html/0370-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KINGSBURY v. PHELPS’S ADMINISTRATOR.
    Pledge — interest Qf the pledgee — statute of limitations as to parties.
    Where notes and other choses in action have been given to a person to indemnify him for having gone security for the pledger, with an agreement they should be the pioperty of the security if he was made liable, the security does not hold the notes absolutely, but as indemnity and is liable to account.
    • The equity of the statute of limitations, does not apply to trust property, between the cestui que trust and the trustee.
    In Chancery. The complainant claims that one G. Pease placed in Phelps’s hands, securities to a large amount, to indemnify him for going security for him for $2300, and agreed that if he, Phelps, was made liable, the notes, &c. should be his, but if not made liable, that he should account for them. The interest of Pease in the agreement is now in the complainant, and he now calls for an account.
    The answer of the defendant admits the surety, and the delivery of the notes, as set forth, but asserts ignorance of the assignment to the complainant, and claims the- obligations to be his own property, as the intestate had paid sundry sums for Pease: it also insists that the demand is a stale one.
    
      Webb and P. Hitchcock, for the complainants.
    
      Newton and Perkins, for the defendants.
   By the Court.

It appears that sundry demands were given to Phelps, to indemnify him for going security, under an agreement, that if Phelps had to pay, the demands should be his own.

It is well settled, that the property in a pledge for indemnity,-is not changed absolutely by the pledge. In such cases as in mortgages, the pledgee or mortgagee is held subject to account,whatever may be the form of the contract. Such is the apparent right of the complainant here.

It is. said the claim is a stale one, and is within the equity of the statute of limitations. That statute does not apply between a trustee and a cestui que trust, which is the case before us. The case is one of trust property in the hands of the defendant’s intestate, and seems a proper one for an account before a master, where the claims can be examined; and it is referred to a master for account.