The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States, and the United States v. James Beverly and Jane His Wife, William Ramsay and Elizabeth His Wife, Hamilton and James Peter, Heirs of David Peter, Deceased and George Peter, Surviving Executor of David Peter, Deceased

Decision Date01 January 1843
PartiesTHE PRESIDENT, DIRECTORS, AND COMPANY OF THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE UNITED STATES, v. JAMES B. BEVERLY AND JANE HIS WIFE, WILLIAM RAMSAY AND ELIZABETH HIS WIFE, HAMILTON AND JAMES PETER, HEIRS OF DAVID PETER, DECEASED, AND GEORGE PETER, SURVIVING EXECUTOR OF DAVID PETER, DECEASED
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

42 U.S. 134
1 How. 134
11 L.Ed. 75
THE PRESIDENT, DIRECTORS, AND COMPANY OF THE BANK OF
THE UNITED STATES, AND THE UNITED STATES,
v.
JAMES B. BEVERLY AND JANE HIS WIFE, WILLIAM RAMSAY AND
ELIZABETH HIS WIFE, HAMILTON AND JAMES PETER, HEIRS OF
DAVID PETER, DECEASED, AND GEORGE PETER, SURVIVING EXECUTOR OF
DAVID PETER, DECEASED.
January Term, 1843

Page 135

THIS case grew out of that of Peter v. Beverly, which came before this court in 1836, on an appeal from the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, in decreeing an injunction on the proceedings of the then complainants, to sell a part of the real estate of David Peter, deceased. A full report of that case will be found in 10 Peters, 532, et seq., wherein all the facts and circumstances attending it are fully set forth in the opinion of the court, and do not require repetition now. The result of that opinion was a reversal of the decree below; a dissolution of the injunction; an order that the bill of the complainants be dismissed, and that the cause be remanded to the Circuit Court, with directions to carry the decree of this court into effect. This was done, and the decree consummated by a sale of the property in controversy, which consisted of those parts of the real estate of David Peter which he had by his will charged with the payment of his debts; but they being insufficient for the purpose, the present bill was filed in order to subject the residue of the estate, not so charged directly by the will, to the payment of the residue of the debts of the estate.

In March, 1836, the heirs or devisees of David Peter executed a deed to John Marbury, authorizing him to sell certain property, which he accordingly did; the amount of sales being $38,722, 32 cents.

At a subsequent period of 1836, the Bank of the United States, in behalf of the said bank, and of the United States, and of such of the creditors of the estate of David Peter as should come into court and contribute to the expenses of the suit, filed a bill against George Peter, surviving executor, against the heirs or devisees of David Peter, and against John Marbury, trustee as aforesaid, stating that the personal estate of the said testator had been applied to the use and benefit of the heirs by the executors, in the fulfilment of the trust created by the will, and claiming that the real estate of the said testator, or the proceeds thereof, or as much as might be necessary, should be applied to pay whatever balance might remain due to the creditors, after selling and applying to that purpose the proceeds of the city lots and the land upon which Dulin lived. It prayed, also, an injunction against Marbury, and for other and general relief.

Page 136

In April, 1836, the following agreement was made between the counsel of the respective parties, and filed in the cause.

Agreement of Counsel.

It is agreed by the parties in this cause, by their counsel, that the Bank of the United States and George Peter, who claim to be creditors of the estate of the late David Peter, for a balance of debt which may remain to them after the application of the trust estate provided in the will of the late David Peter for the payment of his debts, shall, if such balance be established against the defendants, the heirs and devisees of David Peter, as to so much of David Peter's real estate as is conveyed to John Marbury, by deed filed as an exhibit with complainant's bill, look to the proceeds of sales of said real estate so conveyed to the said John Marbury, in lieu and stead of the said real estate itself.

It is further agreed, that as soon as the purchase-money of said real estate shall become payable and be collected by said John Marbury, he shall invest the same in his own name, as trustee, in Pennsylvania State stock, bearing interest at the rate of 5 per cent., first deducting therefrom the necessary expenses, taxes due on the said property, to the day of sale, and the commissioners provided for in the said deed; the whole of the proceeds of the said sales, after such deductions made, to be subject to the order and decree of this court in this cause for the disposal thereof, whether the said order or decree be for the payment of debts due from the said estate of David Peter to the Bank of the United States, or to George Peter, or other person, or from the said heirs and devisees, or either of them, to the said Bank of the United States, or George Peter, or either of them, on account of any portion of the personal estate of said David Peter, used or retained by them severally; provided, also, that it is the true intent and meaning of this agreement, that the part, portion, or interest of each of said heirs and devisees, should be responsible only for so much of the claims and debts of said heirs and devisees, to said Bank of the United States, or George Peter, as he or she shall be personally responsible for; and that no one shall be held or deemed responsible for any other than him or herself.

It is further agreed, that the Bank of the United States, or George Peter, or either of them, by themselves or their agent,

Page 137

may stop or postpone the sale of any portion, or the whole, of the property advertised for the 15th inst., or any future attempted sale of property so conveyed to said John Marbury, if they, or either of them, should be dissatisfied with the prices bid, or offered, for said property, or any portion thereof; provided, however, that all the said property shall be sold during the present year, unless the said bank and George Peter consent to further delay.

It is further agreed, that the three story brick house and lots appurtenant in Washington City, set forth in said deed to John Marbury, as devised in trust for William H. Peter, shall be sold jointly by the said John Marbury and the said George Peter, sen., executor of David Peter, and upon the terms mentioned in the deed to said John Marbury; and that the proceeds of the sale of the said house and lots appurtenant, after deducting expenses and taxes, shall, when the same becomes due and is collected, be invested by the said John Marbury and George Peter, in their joint names as trustees, in five per cent. stock of the state of Pennsylvania, to abide the order of this court for the disposal of the same. The said John Marbury to charge no commission on the proceeds of said sale, if the court shall be of opinion that the said house and lots appurtenant be part of the real estate of David Peter; and the said George Peter to have no commission on the proceeds thereof, if the court be of opinion that the same is the property of the estate of William H. Peter, deceased.

It is understood and agreed, that nothing herein contained is to be taken to amount to an admission by the defendants, the said heirs and devisees, or either of them, that any debt is due from them, or either of them, to the said complainants or the said George Peter; or to prevent them, or either of them, from having the benefit of the statute of limitation, by plea or answer, or any other defence, legal or equitable, against the enforcement of the claims of the complainants, or George Peter, except that the said defendants, the said heirs and devisees, do hereby waive any exception to the jurisdiction of the court, as to the personal estate in this agreement mentioned.

F. S. KEY, for United States Bank.

JAS. DUNLOP, Solicitor and Trustee for Geo. Peter.

JOHN MARBURY, Sol'r for heirs, and devisees, and himself. April 12th, 1836.

Page 138

Afterwards all the defendants answered. George Peter, the executor, claimed to be a creditor of the estate; Marbury admitted the execution of the deed to him and the sales under it; and the devisees, Beverly and others, pleaded the lapse of time and the statute of limitations as a full and complete bar against the claim of the complainants. They also denied all knowledge of an arrangement with the Bank of Columbia; required proof of it; denied the authority of the executors to cast any further burden upon the real estate, than such as would result from a deficiency in the personal estate; denied that the executors applied to the bank for indulgence; averred that the negligence of the executors alone prevented the recovery of the purchase-money of the farm from Magruder; averred that the children of David Peter were minors at the time of his death, and incapable for consenting to any arrangement whatever with the banks; that Beverly had no knowledge of, or interest in, the property until 1819, when his marriage took place; that they were never able to acquire any information, and never did, of the complicated affairs of the estate; praying that the decree of the court, dismissing a similar bill in 1827, may be as effectual as if formally pleaded; averring that any agreement with the banks could affect nothing more than the trust part of the real estate; they...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Union & Planters' Bank of Memphis v. City of Memphis
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 21 Octubre 1901
    ... ... CITY OF MEMPHIS. No. 924. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. October ... 'That said company shall pay to the state of Tennessee an ... principle are the cases of Bank v. Beverly, 1 How ... 134, 139, 11 L.Ed. 75; Cromwell v ... ...
  • Messinger v. Anderson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 17 Junio 1909
    ... ... ANDERSON. No. 1,916. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. June 17, ... The plaintiff below was ... Peter Anderson, a grandson of Henry Anderson, and the ... the United Realty Company and Rosewell E. Messinger, ... defendants; the ... remainder upon the death of his father, James H. Anderson, ... under the will of his ... to the estoppel. Union Bank v. Memphis, 111 F. 561, ... 49 C.C.A. 455; ... Bank v ... Beverly, 1 How. 134, 149, 11 L.Ed. 75; New Orleans ... ...
  • Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company v. King
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 31 Mayo 1900
    ... ... Shoup, 28 Kan ... 394; Hamilton v. Marks, 63 Mo. 167, 172; Bird v ... Sellers, ... Sibbald v. U.S., 12 Pet. 488; President v ... Beverly, 1 How. 134; Corning v. Troy Iron ... It is true ... that the opinion states that, at the time King redeemed, each ... of the ... ...
  • City of New Orleans v. Citizens Bank of Louisiana
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 24 Mayo 1897
    ... ... of any national bank, state bank, banking company, banking firm or banking association, whose ... books, and it shall be the duty of the president or other officer to furnish to the assessor a ... such latter officer then by one of the directors, showing the assets in detail, and the valuation ... 1892 its bill in the circuit court of the United States against the city of New Orleans, the board ... Bonner, 14 La. 233; Martin v. Martin's Heirs, 5 Mart. (N.S.) 170.' ... of assessors of the parish of Orleans, and James D. Houston, tax collector for the Upper district ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT