Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1870-04-27
ORPHANS Court = Judge Paresn.-Thii
court was engaged as follows yesterday

probate. The testatriK bequeaths her estate
TO her daughter Barbara.
LETTERS TEsTANENTARI, ETC.
James Fullerton gave bond 10 $4,000 as
administrator Of A. Fleg.
VIM. Campbell gave bond In $500 as i'd
mlnlstrator Of James Hutchinson.
GUARDIANS.
VIM. A. Leonard gave bond In 81 900 az
guardian Of the orphans Of II. d. Leonard,
and also gave bond In 81 200 as guardian Of
W. W. FTankler.
DECISION.
In the case ofDalton vs. Able, Judge Pur-
cell delivered an oplniSn which Is highly
spoken Of, releasing the administrative and
guardian from her bond Of $4,000 TO ac-
count for certain slaves, said slaves having
became free by law.
Mr.. J. Il. williams and Mr.. Mcpherson
appeared for Mra. Able and Judge Leech
and Mr.. Edwards for Dalton.
Adjourned.
SUPREME CoURT OF TIE DISTRICT OF Co.
LUMBIL-Gsnsrdl Tsrm.-Chlef Justice Cart
ter and Justices Wylle and Olln sat IN
bdne yesterday for the trial Of appeals, and
acted on the following cases; u a. q. f. q =
Henry Douglass, appellant, w.. W. W.
Corcoran q George W. Riggs, appellees.
The appellees' bill sets forth that John Doug
lass, IT,, conveyed the real property men
coran, by deed OF June %, 1915, in trust, to
secure the payment Of $1,000 to the appel
lees, with power 10 the trustee 10 sell, &C.,
In case OF default, &C. That John Douglass
has made default, and that balance Of said
debt remains dues and that trustee departed
this life, and the bill prays for an account,
and for the appointment Of q new trustee TO
sell the property 70 pay said balance, And
the supplemental bill sets forth that John
n0uRlaaa IL IN HanWw
Douglass, The appellant, by deed dated Feb
ruary 81, 1856, expressly subjected 10 the
payment BY the said Henry Douglass, OF
tho deed Of trust given BY the said
John Douglass to Thomas Corcoran."
And Il Is reelted m the deed that
said property was so conveyed "for and In
consideration OF $4,000, TO the said John
Douglass In hand paid by the said Henry, at
and before the enseallng and delivery Of
these presents, the receipt whereof Ia hereby
fully acknowledged, aud In further consId-
Grafton that the said Henry Douglass shall
pay on and assume (Which he hath hereto
fore agreed to do) all the membranes now
existing within BY judgment, or deeds OF
trust or mortgage, on and against the prop
erty and promises hereinafter described, 90
as TO fully eIonerato therefrom the said John
Douglass" &c. The appellant, as to so
much Of the bill a. prayB an account, &C.,
and for new trustee, and for q sale OF the
said property, pleaded the statute Of llmlta-
lions, TO wits Act Of Maryland Of lTl5, chap.
ter 90, section 0, and 10 the other parts OF
the bill answered, that said debt had been
fully paid, and that said real estate was not
expressly subjected 10 the payment, by this
appellant, OF the said deed Of trust given by
the said John Douglass. ~ II. IN
The appellees Joined Issue upon the ap.
pellant's plea and answer. The cause was
heard upon bill, Answer, exhibits, and depo-
sltlon Of George W. Riggs, one Of the ap-
| pellees; the court decreed "that the said
Henry Douglass do pay to the compliments
the sum OF 1900, and interest from 0cto-
Der is, 1868, that unless this debt be paid
within thirty days from the present date,
with interest, the real estate In said bill
mentioned be sold for the payment Of said
sum-" ..'
From this decree the defendant, Henry
Douglass, appealed to this court.
There was some proof that Henry Dong
lass had aAid to Mr.. Riggs In 1869 that he
"would pay the outstanding interest In
few days." and payments Of interest on the
note secured were proved TO have been made
In 1855, 1858, 1863, and 1855.
Mr.. Thompson, for tho appellant, argued
that the subject matter OF the suit was q
mere personal right OF action, and barred
| By lapse OF time under the Maryland statute
| Of limitations. Mr.. T. argued, also, that
Henry Douglass was not an original party TO
tho debt, and therefore not bound therefor,
under the statute Of frauds. ff
Mr.. Matthews, for the appellees, argued
that the Maryland act Of limitations Ia entl-
| tied "An act for the Limitation Of certain
actions for avoiding Guits at law" That the
statute Of limitations does not apply 70 equl-
table remedies, except whore legal and equi-
/ table process are concurrent. .F ISL
Judge Cartier announced the opinion OF
the Court, In substance, as follows .-
Il Is commended that this case Is excluded
| from the statute OF Limitations BY Its terms;
these terms TO DO found In the title 70 the
statute, confne II 70 action at law, and not
to remedies In equity that the case hero
resting In equity IL not to be affected by
statutes which apply 10 actions al law alone.
They have proceeded further, declaring
/ that the law which has received the support
OF the courts OF Maryland and New York
IL, that whore q claim IL manifested at law
and in equity, aud lis Issue Is In law, and lie
security In equity, that the limitations be-
longing 10 legal paper shall not affect the
equitable features OF the Transaction that
although an action OF ejectment might be
brought at law upon the consideration OF
deed OF trust or an action Of assumpSlt or q
promisSory note so secured, and In conse-
Quence Of the lapse OF time, he barred 90
as 70 take away at law the foundation upon
which the deed Of truAts rests, still that the
remedies created BY the decd oftrust remain
unlmpaired In equity.
Now there Is no question Of the fact that
these principles, whether right or wrong,
have been for series OF years held by the
courts Of Maryland In the light and under
the Interpretation OF this statute. Now
whatever might be our Judgment as to the
wisdom OF this opinion, or OF Its application,
II has remained too long to repeal or dis.
turb Il.
In the ease before us we have a deed Of
trust made In 1915 for the payment Of notes
for 1900, running through q series Of
months, perhaps thirty or Whereabouts, Il
the deed Of trust was satisfied according Il
Its terms. We have another instrument IL
writing conveying on tho part Of the grAntoi
J In the deed Of trust OF the fee slmple Of tn,
estate upon which the trust rested TO thu
respondent In these proceedings, expressly
subJectiDg the estate 10 the prior executed
Membranes, not by terms In detail, but
. BY terms that necessarily comprehend thli
incpmbrance. We have before us proof o.
the execution OF q pronlssory note at a latei
period, given In evidence Of the existence o.
= tho trust BY the mortgagori so that THU
, Indebtedness was not extlnRuiBhed. 81. NJ.
Now Ii Is true that this deed OF trust wa
given by the respondent In this bill, but Il 1
equally true that he took the property sub
Ject 70 this incumbranoei that he know o
the Indebtedness on the part OF his grantoT
and the extent Of II and the security, Rul
without going further into the case, thl
alone furnishes ground for proceeding i
, equity now, without undertaking TO conSlde
what might DO more vague, the declaration
Of the respondent In this ease; but II II wer
necessary, enough might DO found In Il /
+, show o recognition Of this debt by the n
/. spondent, that ho felt himself under som
!, obligation TO llquldRte II. Whether thI
: may operate - q promise TO take the cas-
out OF the statute OF Limitations a. TO hi
!. arc matters not material 10 this case.
. rests upon considerations lying back OF l
/. frmed.