
    John S. Stiles et. al. vs. Sarah Brown et. al.
    Dec. 1843.
    Where the court perceives from the mutual allegations of the parties, and from tho evidence adduced in the cause, that they had stated and sottled an account between themselves, they cannot claim a doeroe to account.
    A complainant seeking to investigate ancient accounts, will have his case subjected to severe scrutiny; although he is not to be visited with all tho consequences of laches; while on tho other hand, tho defendant’s evidence may receive a more indulgont consideration. Tho time at which the claim is advanced, and a failure to prosecute it against original parties, while they were alive, are circumstances calculated to create suspicion against such a claim, and in a doubtful case strengthen tho defences which the re. presentatives of such original parties may set up._
    Where the parties sottlo and adjust their mutual claims, and one gives the . other a note for the balance duo, this forecloses an enquiry into all antecedent transactions, unless upon the ground of error or fraud.
    Appeal from the Court of Chancery.
    The bill of John S. Stiles, of the city of Baltimore, and of William P. Maulsby, trustee, filed on the 2nd July, 1840, for the benefit of the creditors of said Stiles, stated i that sometime about the year 1827, a judgment having been rendered against J. S. S. in Baltimore county court, for the sum of $1,000, or thereabouts, he requested a certain Stewart Brown to become his surety on an appeal bond, for the purpose of carrying said cause to the Court of Appeals; and at the same time he borrowed from said Brown his promissory note for the sum of about $1,900, and for the purpose of indemnifying the said B. for his said suretyship, and of securing the payment of the said note so borrowed, he conveyed to the said B. several lots or parcels of land lying and being in the City of Baltimore, and six shares of stock in the Temascaltepec Mining Company of Baltimore; that several, if not all, of the said shares of stock were sold by the said Brown, in his life-time, but for what prices or sums your orators do not know, except two shares, which sold for the sum of $1,265, as staled by said B.; and that said lots or parcels of ground were also sold,-partly in the life-time of the said B. and partly since his death; that the complainants have no accurate knowledge of the amount of money realised by said sales, but are fully convinced that it largely exceeds the amount of the said judgment and note; and, that a considerable sum is now due and owing to your orators, who further state that, sometime in the year 1835, John S. Stiles made ap plication for the benefit of the insolvent laws of Maryland, and that William P. Maulshy has been duly appointed permanent trustee for the benefit of the creditors, and has given bond, with security, according to law; that the said S. B. departed this life sometime in the year 1832, intestate, and that letters of administration have been granted to Sarah, George, and John JV1 Brown; that said administrators, though often requested, have wholly refused and neglected to render to your orators any account of the monies received by the said S. B., for the said stocks and for said lots or parcels of ground, and to pay over the balance now remaining in their hands after payment of the said judgment and the promissory note, &c.
    Prayer that subpoena may issue to said administrators, &c.;, and that complainants may render a full*true and perfect ac - count of all and singular the monies received by the said B,, in his life-time, or by the said administrators, or any or either of them, since his death, from the sale of said stock and property before mentioned, and that a decree may pass ordering and requiring said administrators to pay over to your orator, William P. Maulshy, trustee, as aforesaid, such balance as upon a fair settlement of accounts may be found due, and that such other and further relief may be granted in the premises as to justice and equity shall seem meet, &e.
    The answers of Sarah, George, and JohnJV. Brown, admin istrators of Stewart Brown, admitted that said Stiles made application for the benefit of the insolvent laws of Maryland, as stated in complainants bill, some time in the year 1835; but they do not know, and do not admit, that said Maulshy has been duly appointed permanent trustee for the benefit of the creditors of said Stiles. They admit that said 8, B. departed this life1 some time in the year 1832, intestate, and that letters of administration have been granted to these defendants. They also admit that the said John Stiles, by deed of mortgage, dated 2 Ifh May, 1827, conveyed to said S B- five lots of ground situate, &c. numbered 21, 24, 44, 55, and 59, for the purpose stated by complainants in their bill; and that by another deed, dated the 31st of July, 1829, said Stiles further conveyed the said lots to said S. B., with power to sell and dispose of the same absolutely,' ahd the proceeds to apply, first to the payment of the said S. B. the amount due to him on the judgment mentioned in said mortgage, and for the payment of which the said S. B. had become surety, and of the sum of money lent and. advanced by said S. B. to said Stiles, and secured by said mortgage, and the surplus, if any, to pay over to said Stiles, or his assigns. They admit that three of said lots were sold in the life-time of said S. B.; but they allege that if said Stiles has no accurate knowledge of the amount of money realised by said sales, as stated in complainants bill, it is because he has forgotten his own acts, and not because said S. B. failed to render an account thereof to him ; for they further allege that it appears by the records of Baltimore county court, that on the 9th of October, 1829, the said Stewart Brown and John S. Stiles, by deed of that date, conveyed to William D. McKim the lots 21 and 24, above mentioned, the said S. B. receiving $400 consideration therefor. That on the 10th of October, 1829, the said S. B. and J. S. S., by deed of that date, conveyed to John Kirby the southernmost moiety of lot No. 44, above mentioned, S. B. receiving $260 consideration thereof; and that on the 10th October, 1829, the said S. B- and J. S. S., by deed of that date, conveyed to William H. Stewart the northernmost moiety of said lot number 44, S. B. receiving $260 consideration therefor. These defendants allege that they have no accurate personal knowledge of the state of accounts between said S. and said B. in the life-time of said B., but they believe the said S. to have been largely indebted to the.said B. at the time of his death. They allege that after the death of the said S. B. said S. filed his bill in this honorable court against the widow, heirs, and administrators of said B., alleging that said & B. by his bond of conveyance, dated the 23rd of November 1830, bound himself to convey to said S. two pieces or lots of ground, that is to say, the remaining lots of these above mentioned, to wit, the lots number 55 and 59, on said S. paying to said JB. a promissory note of even date with said bond, drawn by said S. in favor of said B. or order, for $2,700, bearing interest, payable at four months after date. That said S. in his said bill further alleged that more completely to secure the payment of said promissory note said S. and his wife executed to said B. a mortgage of a tract of land in Queen Jinne1 s county, Maryland, called Marsh’s Chester Farm, all of which, &c. These defendants further allege that on the application of said S. in said bill, and wdth the consent of the defendants thereto, and upon the allegation of said S. therein, that he was indebted to the administrators of 8. B. the sum of $2,700 on said note, a decree was passed adjudging and ordering that on payment by said S. to the trustee in the said decree named, or to the said administrators, or on bringing into this court, to be paid to them, the sum of $2,700, with interest thereon, a»d the costs of the suit, the said John S. Stiles should have, hold, &c.; but in case said sum of money, with interest and costs, was not paid before the 1st of November 1833, then said trustee was ordered and directed to sell said property for the purpose of settling and paying the same, &c. These defendants further allege, that although said Stiles, in his said bill, admitted that he was indebted to the administrators of S. B. in the sum of $2,700, yet that defendants have never claimed said amount from him, but that they have always limited their demand to the sum of $1,450, which they believe to have been justly due and owing from said S. to said B. on the promissory note of said Stiles, forthat amount, dated 11th Octoberl832, drawn in favor of said S. B., which note they file, &c. These defendants further allege, that after the passage of said decree, to wit, on the 8th day of August 1833, the said Stiles and his wife, and the said George Brown, as trustee, by deed of that date, sold another of the above mentioned lots of ground, to wit, number 55, to John Patterson, for the sum of $750, of which $150 were received by said Stiles and $600 by said G, B., in part liquidation of the said sum of <$1,450; and that sis’d deed expressly admits that said Stiles was indebted to the representatives of S. B. in said sum of $1,450, as will appear by reference to a copy of said deed, which, &c. These defendants further allege that after crediting said S. with said sum of $600, a considerable amount still remained due, and said Stiles entirely failing to pay the same at'the time limited by said decree for the payment of the same, said trustee proceeded to sell the other lot of ground, to wit, lot number 59 above mentioned; that he sold the same for the gross surn of $910 ; that the sale thereof was duly reported to and ratified by this honorable court.
    In relation to the Temascaltepec mining stock, these defendants say they know nothing thereof, except from some loose memoranda contained upon a paper found among the papers left by the said Stewart Brown, and which paper is herewith filed, marked, &c. From this memoranda it appears that said S., to secure his note for $1,995, due the 26th May 1828, transferred six shares of said stock to said S. B.; that on the 12th day of September 1828, one of these shares was sold for $620; -on the 29th day of September 1828, another was sold for $645; on the 4th October 1828, one was returned to J. S. S.; and on the 25th February 1829, another was given to said S. to be sold, he to keep $150, the balance to be paid to S. B. It does not appear whether said Stiles ever sold said share of stock, or paid any part of the proceeds thereof to S. B.. From memoranda on another part of said paper it further appears that on the 30th September 1828, the said S. B. held as security for the note of John McFadon, dated the 29th September 1828, at ninety days, for $666, two shares of Temascaltepec mining stock, viz: one of those of said Stiles', and one transferred by Margaret McFadon; and that on the 25th March 1829, two shares of stock were transferred to Margaret McFadon; whether one of them shares was the property of said Stiles, and if his, what it produced, these defendants do not know. It does not appear what became of the remaining share or shares of stock transferred by said Stiles to said Brown ; and.defendants do not know whether said share or shares were returned to said Stiles or sold by said Brown, or whether they still remain in the name of said Brown; but they allege that said stock, about Nov. 1829, became perfectly worthless in the market, and has so continued ever since; and they think it probable that it was so considered both by said Stiles and Brown. They allege that there is now standing in the name of Stewart Brown some shares of said stock, and that they are ready to transfer a share or shares thereof to said Stiles; or to his permanent trustee, whenever ordered to do so by this honorable court. They allege that they never heard of any claim or demand on account of said stock by said Stiles until a long time, that is to say, about six years after the death of said S. B. ; and they further allege that said Stiles having, long after the transfer of said stock to said Stewart Brown, given his said note to said Brown for $1,450, as above alleged, and having after the death of said Brown deliberately signed a deed setting forth that he was indebted to the representatives of said Stewart Brown in that sum, shows satisfactorily that complainants can have-no fair claim against the representatives of said Stewart Brown, for or on account of said stock, but that all accounts between said Stiles and Brown must have been settled between them in the life time of said Brown, and the above amount of $1,450 have then been ascertained to be due, 8?c.
    
    With this answer the various exhibits referred to in it were filed, and after proof taken, the cause was referred to the auditor, who, with other accounts, reported account B, viz:
    Dr. John S. Stiles in acSt with Sarah Brown, George Brown and John JY. Brown, admin’rs of S. Brown.
    
    1832, Dec. 13th, To his note due this day, - $1,450 00
    By this sum paid by sale of property, 8th Aug. 1833, interest having been paid, - - 600 00
    850 00
    Interest from 8th Aug. 1833, to 15tb July 1835: 1 y. 11 m. 7 ds. 98 74
    948 74
    
      By proceeds of sale in Stiles vs. Brown and others, in this court, 15th July 1835, and defendants answer, - <$834 53
    114 21
    Interest from 15th July 1835 to 28th Oct. 1841: 6 ys. 3 ms. 13 ds. - - - - 43 08
    Balance due to the defendants $157 29
    Which was ratified by the Chancellor, (Bland,) 3rd March 1842, who also decreed that the said balance should be paid the defendants, out of the insolvent’s estate, by the trustee, if the assets were sufficient to pay the Same.
    The complainants appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Stephen, Archer, Dprseí and Spence, J.
    By Alexander for the appellants, and
    By Brown and Bruñe for the appellee.
   Archer, J.,

delivered the opinion of this court.

It has been admitted by the counsel for the appellant, that if we should believe from the mutual allegations of the parties, and from the evidence adduced, that they had stated and settled an account between them, the appellants cannot claim a decree at our hands. This admission is in strict conformity with the rules of equity governing bills to account.

In our enquiry into this question, we cannot forbear to remark that the account now sought at the hands of the defendant, is of transactions not of recent origin, but of an antiquity, which if it do not in point of law subject the party to be visited with all the consequences of laches, yet necessarily subjects his case to a severer scrutiny, and the defendants evidence to a more indulgent consideration. The time, too, at which this claim is sought to be enforced — several years after the death of the party with whom the transactions were had, who if living, it is reasonable to believe, might have explained what at this distance of time has thrown difficulties over the transaclions complained of; and the failure during the lifetime of the defendant’s intestate to institute this proceeding, are circumstances calculated to throw suspicion over the claim of the complainant, and in a doubtful case would strengthen the defences which might be set up in behalf of the defendant.

The testimony, however, in the record leaves us no room for reasonable doubt on the subject. On the 11th of October, 1832, John S. Stiles passed his note to Stewart Brown, payable four months after date, for fourteen hundred and fifty dollars. A bill was filed by Stiles, (at what time the record does not show,) alleging that he had given a mortgage to secure Brown the payment of the sum of $2,700, and praying a decree for the re-conveyance of the property mortgaged upon payment of the debt; and the Chancellor decreed, on 13th July, 1833, the payment of the money and re-conveyance of the property, and in case of a failure to pay the money that the mortgaged property should be sold. Afterwards, on the 8th of August, 1833, George Brown, the trustee in said chancery suit, John S. Stiles and wife, unite in a deed of a lot of land in the city of Baltimore to John Patterson, in which deed the decree above referred to is recited, and it is further recited that at the time of passing the decree, viz, on the 13th July, 1833, the sum of $1,450 only was owing to Stewart Brown's representatives from John S. Stiles, which it is recited is known to and admitted by Brown’s administrators. Here is a clear and solemn recognition of a settlement of accounts, and an adjustment of claims. Only the sum of $1,450 was due to Brown. The parties correct the error in the decree by their mutual admissions, and assume the amount of the note of October 11th, 1832, as ascertaining the balance due. But independent of this clear recognition of a settlement and adjustment of the claims of the respective parties, the letter of Stiles, of the 23rd February, 1837, in which he promises to call and adjust the balance, is strongly confirmatory of the idea of a settlement between the parties, and entirely negatives the hypothesis that the representatives of Brown are either largely indebted to him, or indebted to him at all. By the testimony which the record furnishes we feel ourselves led conclusively to the opinion that the parties settled and adjusted their claims by the note of 13th October, 1832. This of course forecloses an enquiry into all antecedent transactions, unless upon the ground of error or fraud, and we perceive no evidence of either in the record. If it be true that some of the shares of the Temascaltepec mining company remained in the hands of Brown unsold, which had been transferred to him as a security for a loan, we may fairly infer, the proof showing they were worthless in December, 1829, that they were left, on the settlement of October, 1832, when the note was given for f1,450, in the hands of Brown, with consent of Stiles. They were then worthless and would be of no use to any one.

Upon the whole case, therefore, after bestowing our best reflections upon it, we entertertain the opinion that account B, as reported by the auditor, reaches the justice of the case, and as this account has been made the basis of the Chancellor’s judgment we affirm his decree.

decree affirmed.  