Case Name: Gantt vs. Bowie's Adm'r; Same vs. Same
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1806-06
Citations: 2 H. & J. 374
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gantt vs. Bowie’s Adm’r. Same vs. Same.
Judges: The causes were argued before Chase,. Civ J. Polk, Buchanan, Nicholson, and Earle, J. by
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: 374–376

Head Matter:
Gantt vs. Bowie’s Adm’r. Same vs. Same.
The defendant* as smrely for F B, $n a bond for the payment oi money given to the T>isi,intifFas trmtve mv the sale of an estate, h wing pleaded payment, St the trial offered to file an account $n bar, claiming in the name of F B, a sum of money due to him as his proportion ot the ii mount of the sajes of the soul a?*»aie — flW&tlut I he account count nut be filed
> To establish tlve above account in ■fear, the defendant ©ffWvd to it ad a copy* under seal, of a decree of the courtofehancery* f>»r the sale of the estate of J E, and the appointment ©V the .plaintiff trustee to make the sale, and the trustee’s report of ^he ¡fule and ratification by the chancellor, together. wu\i the auditors statement and ratification •thereof showing the proportion duelo the cn-ditors. ami amrnipf others of ihc sum due to F B above named, and claimed to bo set air— i/tfia, Uiat such evidence was inadmissible.
The plaintiff to shov( that F B was not entitled to the proportion adjudged to him out qf the profieras oí the sale ot tbe real estate of J Ej and to prove? that 3T B was one oi the mi rc-tirs’in the ndministration on the por-onal estate of J E, and that it had been misapplied, and not legally admini*5 tci ed, oíteiyci »u evidence the administration bond, and an account signed by F- B, foV tb¿ adiuinis* $vatux — that the evidence was no.t admissible
Appeals from Prmec-George's County Court. They were two actions of debt on joint and several bonds, given to the appellant, as trustee appointed by the court of chancery for the sale of the veal estate of J. Evcrsfield, each by F. Bowie, with the appellee’s intestate, and J. Brown, his sureties,' each bond was conditioned for the payment of ¿619 5 0, The defendant, (now appellee,), in each case pleaded payment by his intestate, to which there was the general replication, and issue joined.
1. At the trial of the first cause at September term 1801, after the jury were sworn, the defendant produced and offered to file the following account in bar. iiThomas Gantt, trustee for the creditors of John Eversfield, to Fielder Bowie, Dr.
1793. To the sum adjudged to be due me by the chancellor as my proportion of the amount of the sales of
John Eversfield's real estate, £67 3 3|”
To which the plaintiff objected. But the county court overruled the objection, and permitted the account to be filed, and the same was filed. The plaintiff excepted. 2, At the trial of the second cause at April term 1802, it having befen agreed between the parties that the pica of discount might be pleaded and ¡hade up in a regular manner, and that any thing might be given in evidence-, which could legally be given in evidence Ondée that plea, the plaintiff offered in evidence, that the bond on which this suit was brought was given by F. Bowie, as the principal obligor, and A. Bowie, deceased, and J. Brown, his sureties, to the plaintiff, as trustee for the sale of J. EversfidtPs real estate, and that the money claimed to be due thereon is not claimed by the plaintiff in his individual capacity, but as trustee as aforesaid. To establish the plea of discount in this cause, and to have the account in bar mentioned therein discounted out of the bond on which this suit is brought, the defendant offered in evidence a copy, under seal, of the decree made in the court of chancery in the case of the creditors of John Eversfidd, deceased, against Mary, his only daughter and heir, decreeing that the real estate of the said Eversfidd, which descended to bis daughter Mary, be sold for the payment of the debts of her father, and that T. Gantt, (the plaintiff,) be appointed trustee to sell the said real estate; that he should divide the purchase money into six or more equal parts, and tato a separate bond for each part, in order that the aaine might be assigned amongst the creditors in case they should so elect, and it should appear to the court proper to be so done. That he should bring into court the money arising from the sale, to be applied in satisfying just claims against the deceased. Also a copy, under seal, of the report ¡nade by the trustee of the sale of the said real estate, and the chancellor’s order ratifying the sarae; and the auditor’s statement of the proportions due to the creditors, and among others, to F. Bowie, of £28 12 1, and £18 18 1; to J\ Bowie, & Co. £77 14 4; to A. Bowie, (the defendant’s intestate,) £6 16 11, and to Contees and Bowies £ 15 17 10. Which statement was approved and ratified by the chancellor. The defendant also offered to prove, that F. Bowie mentioned therein, is the same JR Bowie mentioned in the bond on which this suit is brought. The plaintiff objected to the copy of the decree, &e. being read in evidence. But the court, [Sprigg, Ch. J.J overruled the objection, and permitted the same tobe read, and it was. read accordingly. The plaintiff excepted.
3. The plaintiff to prove that F. Bowie was one' of the ' sureties in the administration bond on the personal estate of J. EversfieM, and that the personal estate had been misapplied, and not legally administered, offered in evidence the administration bond, and an account signed by F, Bowie, for the administratrix, and intending to prove thereby that F. Bowie was not entitled to a proportion of the sales of the real estate Of J. EversfieM, equal to the sums awarded to him. The defendant objected to the same being proved and read in evidence; and tbe county court, [Sprigg, Ch. J. and Duckett, A. .1.] being divided in opinion, the same was not permitted to be proved or Offered in evidence. The plaintiff excepted. Verdicts and judgments in both cases for the defendant, and the plaintiff prosecuted these appeals.
The causes were argued before Chase,. Civ J. Polk, Buchanan, Nicholson, and Earle, J. by
Magrude.r, for the Appellant;
and by
T: Buchanan, for the Appellee.

Opinion:
The Court
dissented from the opinions of the court below, given in the first and second bills of exceptions, as herein stated, and concurred with that court in the opinion given in the third bill of exceptions.
JUDGMENTS REVERSED, AND PROCEDENDOS AWARDED.'