Murray & Sansom v. Ridley
General Court of Virginia
THIS was an action on a writing obligatory, dated the 17th May, 1788. , The defendant, amongst other pleas, pleaded as follows : (Vide 2 Harris’s Entries, SSI.) “ And the said Catharine comes and defends, &c. and saith that she the said Catharine cannot deny the promises and assumptions of him the said Mathew, in the said declaration mentioned, but she the said C. saith, that by a certain act of the general assembly of the state of Maryland, made at November session, in the…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action on a writing obligatory, dated the 17th May, 1788. , The defendant, amongst other pleas, pleaded as follows : (Vide 2 Harris’s Entries, SSI.) “ And the said Catharine comes and defends, &c. and saith that she the said Catharine cannot deny the promises and assumptions of him the said Mathew, in the said declaration mentioned, but she the said C. saith, that by a certain act of the general assembly of the state of Maryland, made at November session, in the year 1785, and passed on the 11th day of March, 1786, entitled “ An act to alter and amend the law in certain cases,” it…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
gave the following opinion :
1. The state, by common law, is entitled to a preference of ail debts unless on record, from Mathew Ridley.
2. All debts due from M. Ridley to private persons before the 11th of March, 1786, are to be paid by the administratrix according to the act of 1715, c. 39.
3. All debts contracted by M. Ridley with private persons since the 11th of March, 1786, are to be paid to all creditors, whether foreigners or citizens of this or any of the United States, without any preference as to the nature of their debt, except by judgment obtained against Mathew Ridley in…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Baltimore & Susquehanna Rail Road v. WoodruffCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853
- Young v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1972
- Gates v. BuddensieckNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1878