Case ID: sc-eq_4/html/0207-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Georgetown.
    
    Heard before Chancellor Desaussure.
    Stukes and others vs. Alexander Collins and wife, administrators of Skinner.
    CASE
    An executor selling on a credit the personal estate of the deceased, and not taking personal security from tiie purchaser, as prescribed, by the order of the court of ordinary, is liable for the debt, in case of the insolvency of the purchaser, but such insolvency must be established, before the executor’s estate is made absolutely liable.
    The principal question in this case, is upon the allcg-ed liability of Skinner’s estate to make good a debt due to the estate of Mary Ridgcll, of which he was executor. Skinner as executor applied to the ordinary for leave to sell the personal estate of his testator. The ordinary gave leave to sell on the terms proposed in the petition, to wit, that the sale should be on a credit of twelve months, the purchasers giving bon.d with sufficient peiv sonal security. At the sale,' James Magill became, a: purchaser to the amount of 1191. 4s. and gave his bond dated 7th of March, 1797, to George Skinner as executor*, payable in less than a twelve month, but without any security to the bond; Skinner kept the bond and no suit was brought on it till his death, which occurred in 1801. The bond has been in the hands of his administratrix ever since, and no suit has been brought upon it -, hut she swears in her answer that she has always been ready and willing to give up the bond to the complainants, who were entitled to Mary Sidgell’s estate.
    
      FEB’Y. 1812
    
      The complainant refuses to receive the bond, allodg-ing that Skinner by taking the bond without personal security had made himself liable, and that Magill was insolvent; but no proof of insolvency was adduced. There can be no doubt upon this statement of facts, that the estate of Skinner will be bound for the amount of this bond, if Magiil’s estate should really prove to be insolvent; for the executor by taking the bond without requiring persorial security, as the terms of sale prescribed, made himself liable. But how liable ? I apprehend only in case any injury should result from his neglect: some proof should he furnished of that injury; none has been shewn. I think therefore the bond should be sued, and the insolvency ascertained before resort is had to Skinner’s estate.
    It is therefore ordered and decreed that the bond be delivered up to the complainants with proper authority to sue the same, and if the money cannot be obtained by reason of the insolvency of Magill, or of his being out of the reach of the justice of the country, or of his estate being wasted, that the estate of Skinner in the hands of his administratrix shall be liable for the payment of the debt.
   At the sale Skinner himself became purchaser of part of the personal estate, which has never been paid for. It is ordered and decreed, that the administratrix account with the complainants for the amount of his purchase with interest. The costs to be paid by the defendant.

There was no appeal from this decree.