Case Name: LEVI PEACOCK AND LETTIS PEACOCK, HIS WIFE, SUING BY BENJAMIN R. PEACOCK, HER NEXT FRIEND, APPELLANTS, and JOHN BLACK AND THOMAS BLACK, EXECUTORS OF DANIEL NEWBOLD, DECEASED, WHO WAS EXECUTOR OF JOHN HOLLINSHEAD, DECEASED, APPELLEES
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1845-10
Citations: 5 N.J. Eq. 535
Docket Number: 
Parties: LEVI PEACOCK AND LETTIS PEACOCK, HIS WIFE, SUING BY BENJAMIN R. PEACOCK, HER NEXT FRIEND, APPELLANTS, and JOHN BLACK AND THOMAS BLACK, EXECUTORS OF DANIEL NEWBOLD, DECEASED, WHO WAS EXECUTOR OF JOHN HOLLINSHEAD, DECEASED, APPELLEES.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 535–536

Head Matter:
LEVI PEACOCK AND LETTIS PEACOCK, HIS WIFE, SUING BY BENJAMIN R. PEACOCK, HER NEXT FRIEND, APPELLANTS, and JOHN BLACK AND THOMAS BLACK, EXECUTORS OF DANIEL NEWBOLD, DECEASED, WHO WAS EXECUTOR OF JOHN HOLLINSHEAD, DECEASED, APPELLEES.
Where a bill for the recovery of a legacy bequeathed to a married woman was filed thirty-one years after the death of the testator, twenty-four years after the settlement of the estate, and seventeen years after the death of the executor, and no cause shown for the delay, the bill was dismissed on the ground of the presumption of the payment of the demand arising from the time which had passed after the right of action accrued before suit brought.
This case is reported in 3 Green’s Chan. Rep. 61.
It was argued before Lie Court of Errors and Appeals by G. D. Wall, for the appellants,
who cited 2 Story’s Eq. Pl., § 61; 2 Story’s Eq., § 402; 2 Kent’s Com. 235; 1 Green’s Chan. Rep. 37; 2 Ibid. 267; 14 Vesey 469; 16 Vesey 413; 1 Green’s Chan. Rep. 429; Ibid. 37; Story’s Eq., § 1067; t Vesey 517; 10 Vesey 579; 2 Vesey 673; 5 Johns. Chan. Rep. 206; 2 Story, §§ 1405, 1406; 13 Vesey 6; 2 Kent’s Com. 137, 138; 5 Vesey 514; 9 Fesey 173; 12 Vesey 413; 2 Mad. Ch. R. 153; 2 Green’s Ch. R. 264, 516; 17 Vesey 96; 2 P. Wms. 144; 1 Ibid. 742; 3 Bro. Chan. R. 633; 1 Chan. Cases 20, 26; 2 Ibid. 5; 2 Ventr. 345; 3 Bro. Chan. 639, note; 2 Story, § 1367; 19 Vesey 641; 4 Eq. Dig. 366, §§ 7, 10; 4 Ibid. 242, §§ 1, 2; 2 Vesey 472; 1 Johns. Chan. R. 314; 1 Atk. 467; 1 Coxe's Chan. R. 28; 3 Johns. Ch. R. 216; 7 Ibid. 90; 2 Ves., Jr., 943; Cooper’s Chan. R. 205; 2 Vesey 12, 94; 3 Johns. Chan. R. 147.
H. W. Green, for the respondents,
who cited Saxton’s Chan. R. 690; Atkinson 28.

Opinion:
The decree of the Chancellor was unanimously affirmed, except as to costs; and as to costs, it was reversed.