The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-10-30
Interesting Law Case =.

OTHERS, VS.. CHARLES IL. CARROLL AND OTHERS
No department of our law stands in so great
need of Improvement as the laws relating to exc
cutors and administrators, and the disposition Of
the property among the heirs OF persons deceased.
Yet, we bellsve that among all the attempts at inn
provement made IN the administration OF our laws
since the Revolution. this important branch remains
untouched, and our Surrogates office and laws re-
lating 10 wills and devises all conducted the
old English system, lnvented by the ecclesiascs
in the middle ages The great object of these laws
was to divert the property of deceased persons
the uses Of the church or of the executors and TO
defraud the orphan and widow. Who would think
II possible that IN this day a wealthy man in the
State OF New York may die, leaving immense
wealth. or an ample competence, to his wife and
children, and yet, by the completely ofthe laws
thus subject his vile and children may be kept out
OF Their property for years together, totally de-
prv.d of II, and never obtain it. or be obliged to
sacrifice the halt of 1t to lawyers or solicitors in
Chancery, in the dstractiDg attempt to recover it
Yet such is the melancholy fact The law gives
such immunity 10 dishonest executors and ad MIN
istralors. that they are regarded having rights
and powers paramC unit TO the real claimants and
the offspring of wealthy parents may by the inlus-
tee OF The law, be thrown destitute upon the world,
and kept IN ignorance oi what is their right; or if
they happen To know II, be unable TO recover
it, The subject is of deep importance, and requires
the careful hand OF wise legislation 10 put an end
10 evils of the most CRYING injustice and cruelty
We Will now proceed 10 give brief and concise
history OF case which has led us to make the
above remarks.
OF the State of Maryland, departed this life,
leaving behind him an Immense estate, both real
and personal His real estate extensive
in several counties of the State of New York;
he owned great part Of the land on which
the city OF Rochester IN this State Is bult-he
had paper mills the District Of Columbia-he
owned extensive and valuable tracts of land IN the
state OF Mssour--he also owned great part of
Capitol Hill, and the houses built on it, in the city
of Washington, besides leaving personal property to
The amount OF several hundred Thousand dollars
AT his death he left widow and several children,
for HON he provided handsomely his will, leav-
ing them valuable legacies and large tracts Of land.
lie left one OF his sons, Charles Ii. Carroll, his sole
executor; and from that time TO this, his widow
and children, and their children, have been kept
out OF The property; his widow died without having
received her legacy, and the other heirs, his chill
dren, and their children, are now engaged in ex-
pensive, and harassing, and ntermin able litigation
before the courts OF chancery to endeavor To obtain
their just rights, and small portion of their fathers
property.
All this we gather from the record and the legal
documents before MS.
How could these children aud their children
krow what belonged tn them how would
they know what belonged to their fa'herl
How are children n such n situation IL OBJ
tain redressl The answer is, by bill in chan
Gerry To bring which, and to carry a suit
in chancery, lasting many years, (and some
times even four or five hundred years,) requires
a fortune 10 begin with Again. how are they TO
ascertain the amount of their fathers property, and
obtain the rents and profits of 1T The answer
again Is, by bill in chancery and bill of dscove-
wi to eDtTeat the person who will discover no.
thing To them, and who will let them have nothing,
To entreat him TO condesceDd 10 discover, If he
VIII, the amount of their own property, and to
let them have a little modoum oil tn -lr own rights
To live upon, II he will
Now, IL appears from the above case in chance
~, It which we have placed the title at the head
OF this article, that the only means the children
OF Charles Carroll, deceased, possessed Of ever
finding out where their fathers real estate was
situated was To hunt up the records IN the various
recorders offices Of this and other States Of the
Union, 10 order to find out, in reading the. deeds
by which the executor made away with their prop
erty and sold II 10 strangers what estates their
parent possessed when he died, and how they
were described. and where they were situated.
In this manner the family discovered in the
deeds recorded between the executor and the
farmers Loan and Trust Company. some OF their
own property, and where n was situated. In the
their property TO other parties. In the year Icc}5,
the executor, G II Carroll, according to the
printed document before NJ, obtained a large loan
OF morey from the Farmers Loan and Trust Com
lany, ard conveyed away to them as payment
therefor large amount OF real estate IN several
counties Of ths State, belonging the heirs OF the
deceased. In tins manner, by selling the estates
in different parts If thus State aud other States. he
obtained, Il appears. from loan office or CON-
pauy, the amount Of $1,000 dollars, rom another
tOC0 cellars, all by the transfer ct the property of
the heirs under the power Of the will.
Thus, then, the heirs found out where some Of
Their properly was Rone, aud who had It, The
company afterwards flied ball against the exc cutor
to yet back their money loaned TO the executor,
and the heirs then fls their bill, also, TO assert
their night to the property. such was IN. case
which came up for decision in the uprcme Court,
End which was argued at the Monroe General
Term IN October, 1Sts, before Maynard and Welles,
Justices.
The decision of the Justices, as It appears to ne
after most careful examination, turns eutireiy
upon the qnesuon-not whether the executor had
right To sell, and the company the power To buy.
but whether the charter of the company authorized
them TO make the loan VIII oh they mad made to
The executor
The heirs IN their petition to Chancery, insisted
that the sale to. and the purchase by the company,
~ mace be- tween the executor aud company, was
Illegal. nul and VOID. The justices have drc,ded
that the eds made by the executor to the COM
Iany, dlspos'np ct the property OF the heirs, are
null aud void
The Company advanced loan on one occasion.
~ $4,000 Ia the executor. the security Of these
estates belonging To the widow aud Orphans in
certificates which were sent to Europe to be sold.
The executor was To pay per cent for the ,ioney,
according to their nominal amount, but their real
value was ia per cent less Than their nomlua va
lue. On this statement 1T facts, the Supreme
Court has pronounced the sale Of the estates nv
the executor null and VOID, on account of its
being an UsurioUs Transaction. Ii has also de.
c,ded, that the parties in Europe who purchased
the ceiiihcaies OF the Company, have no claims
upon the security gwen by the executor. On
smother ground also, the sale is pronounced in
vel,o and null. because the Comganys right
w Udhe SUCH n loan, or
deed any loan, had expired, and 1t was, therefore,
altogether an illegal transaction the part of the
Company
Thus i will be seen that though the heirs put IN
their bill and petition in this case, yet the decision
md the course of proceedings, far. do not touch
~ All upon their case. Yet Il is very important
decision. and bears very materially, in its effect,
upon the heirs.
The advantage accruing to the heirs Of the de-
ceased. by this decision, are, that now one
rart at least, OF their property is set free froma
powerful company, which had possession Of IT,
There Is an immense mass of evidence in the
history of this curious case, which we have care
July examined, but being technical and legal, and
no, interesting TO the general reader, aud cornpli-
'atlng rather than Calculating the subject, we sb-
.fain from giving il. We have given the gist and
he substance Of the case.