Forbes v. Forbes
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Court of Chancery. The bill in this cause was filed on the 14th June, 1841, by the appellee, and alleged that a certain Elizabeth Forbes was seized and possessed of considerable real and personal estate, and being about to be married, a deed or marital settlement was executed on the 8th June, 1807, between her intended husband of the first part, the said E. F. of the second part; a certain Thomas Marshall and John Forbes of the third part; and a certain…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Chancery. The bill in this cause was filed on the 14th June, 1841, by the appellee, and alleged that a certain Elizabeth Forbes was seized and possessed of considerable real and personal estate, and being about to be married, a deed or marital settlement was executed on the 8th June, 1807, between her intended husband of the first part, the said E. F. of the second part; a certain Thomas Marshall and John Forbes of the third part; and a certain James, John, (above named) James Forbes Sothoron and Rebecca JL. M. Sothoron his wife, James Forbes and Elizabeth Forbes, all…
1Opinion of the CourtAroher, C. J.
We do not consider it necessary to enquire into the question, whether the release executed by the complainant before he attained age was void or voidable. The release now in controversy, was executed after the complainant attained age, and the enquiry is whether the release executed at such a time, and under the circumstances, was void. No doubt a release executed by a ward or cestui que trust, shortly after he attains age, without the necessary accounts or information from which a judgment may be formed of the condition of the estate would not meet with the favor of a court of equity. The…
2Cited by4 opinions
- McClellan v. KennedyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1855
- McDaniel v. HughesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1967
- Levering v. HeigheHigh Court of Chancery of Maryland · 1850
- Levering v. HeigheHigh Court of Chancery of Maryland · 1850