Case Name: Partridge's Adm'x vs. Partridge's Adm'x
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1806-06
Citations: 2 H. & J. 63
Docket Number: 
Parties: Partridge’s Adm’x vs. Partridge’s Adm’x.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 2
Pages: 63–64

Head Matter:
Partridge’s Adm’x vs. Partridge’s Adm’x.
A deviso of land's to a creditor does not extinguish a debt or ciaim which lie has a» gainat the testator
Appeal from Dorchester county court. The appellant, (the administratrix of Jonathan Partridge,) brought an action of assumpsit against the appellee, (the administratrix of Isaac Partridge;) and at the trial of the cause, established by testimony, that Isaac, in his life-time, was indebted to Jonathan, in his life-time, in a certain sum of money. The defendant then offered in evidence the will of the said Isaac, dated the 13 of December 1801, whereby he devised to his father, Jonathan, (the plaintiff’s intestate,) and his heirs, two tracts of land containing about 306 acres, and also the use of all his other lands for life. He also bequeathed to his said father, all his personal estate, and appointed him executor of his will. It was admitted, that the whole personal estate of Isaac was not more than sufficient to pay ten shillings in the pound, and that Jonathan had no benefit from the bequest of the personal estate mentioned in the will; but that the same was expend ed by the payment of the debts of Isaac. That Jonathan accepted and held the lands devised to him by the will, under and in virtue thereof, which was of greater value than the debt claimed by the plaintiff. The defen - dant then prayed the court to direct the jury, that the debt or sum of money claimed by the plaintiff, was extinguished by the said will, and ought not to be recovered. Which prayer the court, {Polk, Ch. J. Done and Robins, A. J.] granted, and were of opinion that the debt or sum of money claimed by the plaintiff was extinguished by the will, and ought not to be recovered, and did accordingly so direct the jury. The plaintiff excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him, lie appealed to this court, where the cause was argued by
J. Bayly, for the appellant
and by
W. B. Martin, for the appellee.

Opinion:
The Court of Appeals
Reversed the judgment of the county court, and awarded a Procedendo.