Pole v. Simmons

Citations

• 49 Md. 14
• 1878 Md. LEXIS 24

Syllabus

<p>Intent of the provision in Ait. 93, see. 104, of the Code, authorizing an Administrator to retain money to meet a claim lenown to Mm, though not exhibited, against his Decedent— Effect of retaining money to meet such claim—What is essential to the Admissibility of the promise or aclcriowledgment of one of several Administrators, in a Suit against all, to talco the case out of the Statute of .limitations.</p> <p>The provisions of the testamentary law (Code Art. 93, sec. 104,) authorizing the administrator to retain money to meet a claim known to him, “provided he can satisfy the Court that such claim is just or may probably be recovered,” is intended to promote despatch of business in the settlement of decedents’ estates by setting apart a fund to meet outstanding claims, without delaying distributees or postponing the final account until all claims are satisfied.</p> <p>The entry of such a retainer does not imply an acknowledgment that anything is due, nor deprive the administrator of the right to contest in Courts of law every such claim, by whatever legal defence he thinks proper to resort to.</p> <p>An administrator may undoubtedly by his promise or acknowledgment revive a debt due by his intestate, but the act of retainer to meet the claim legally imports neither promise, admission nor acknowledgment, express or implied.</p> <p>It is essential to the admissibility of the promise or acknowledgment of one of several administrators, in a suit against all, to take the case out of the Statute of Limitations, 1st. That the original debt be proven aliunde, 2nd. That the promise or acknowledgment occur before the debt be barred by the Statute, and 3rd. That the admission be made within three years before the commencement of the suit.</p>