
    GENERAL COURT,
    OCTOBER TERM, 1793.
    Murray and Sansom against Catharine Ridley, Administratrix of Mathew Ridley.
    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 was, amongst other things, enacted, “ that in the payment of the debts of deceased persons, contracted after the making of the said act, no creditor should be entitled to any priority, except such as had judgment against the deceased, nor should any preference be given to creditors in equal degree by any executor or administrator,” as fully appears by the said act j and the said C. further saith, that the said M. departed this life on the day of , and that letters of administration were granted to the said C. on the day of , in the same year, and that the said M., in his lifetime, and after the passing the said act of assembly, became indebted to the said state of Maryland, on account, in the sum of , and to W. J. and M. by his certain writing obligatory, sealed with his seal, and bearing date the day of , in the penal sum of , to be paid to the said W. y. and M. whenever afterwards he should be thereunto required, with condition thereunder written, that if the said M. should well and truly pay unto the said W. y. and M.r 
      their certain attorney, executors, administrators or assigns, the just and full sum of , with legal interest thereon from the day of , then last past, that then the said writing obligatory should be void ; and the ^ further says, that the said sum of , together with all interest therefor due, are still unpaid, and the said writing obligatory still remains in its full force and effect, no ways annulled, cancelled or satisfied; and the said C. further says, that the said M., in his lifetime, to wit, on the day of , at county aforesaid, and after the passing of the said act of assembly, became indebted for sundry matters properly chargeable in account to U. S. and B. S. in the sum of , and to W. R. in the sum of , current money, which several, sums of money remain unpaid and altogether unsatisfied; all which persons are citizens and residents of this state. And the said C. further saith, that the said M., in his lifetime, to wit, on the day of , and after the passing of the act of assembly aforesaid, became indebted unto S. L., of the state of NewTork, in the sum of , for so much money lent by the said S. to the said M. and to T. H. 0. a subject of Great Britain and resident in the East Indies, on a certain writing obligatory of the said M., sealed with his seal, and bearing date the day of , with a condition thereunder written, for the payment of , together with interest thereon; and to H. H., of H., which said several sums of money are unsatisfied and unpaid, and the several writings obligatory aforesaid, remain in their full force, no ways cancelled or discharged. And the said C. further saith, that the said Mathew, in his lifetime, to wit, on the 17th day of July, 1772, and before the making the act of assembly aforesaid, became indebted to a certain William Vanderstegen, in the sum of2,500/. sterling money, by his certain writing obligatory, sealed with his seal, and bearing date the day and year last aforesaid; and that the same writing obligatory was for a true and just debt, and that the said sum of money last mentioned, with interest thereon, remains now due and unpaid, and the writing obligatory aforesaid remains in full force, not cancelled, annulled or satisfied; and she further saith that the said TV. V. at the time of the execution of the said writing obligatory last mentioned was, ever since hath been, and yet is, a subject of the kingdom of Great Britain. And the said C. further saith, that divers goods and chattels which belonged to the said M. at the time of his death, to the value of , and not more, came to her hands, to wit, at county aforesaid, and that on the day of issuing of the writ original in this cause, or before, or ever after, no other goods and chattels which belonged to the said M. at the time of his death, come to her hands, except the said goods and chattels to the value of the said sum of , and no more, and which sum is not sufficient to pay the debts of the said M. contracted by him after the passing of the act of assembly aforesaid, and to the payment whereof the said sum of is bound and charged by law, without any priority or preference, and this she the said C. is ready to verify; wherefore she prays that the court here would give judgment according to the act of assembly aforesaid,” &c.
    The following case was stated for the court’s opinion, at October term, 1792.
    It is agreed that Mathew Ridley, the intestate, died on the 13th of November, 1789, and that all the debts by specialty he owed at the time of his death, were contracted after the 11th of March, 1786. That he was indebted unto the state of Maryland,, on simple contract, for money had and received by him for the use of the state, to the amount of 2,372/. 3s. 8d. current money, which was due in manner and form as appears by the account herewith exhibited and annexed, signed by Robert Denny, auditor-general, which account is admitted to be just, as it is stated j but it is denied that Mathew 
      
      Ridley was indebted to the state before the 11th of March, 1786.
    That he was indebted to several citizens and residents tract. That he was indebted to several citizens of the states of New-Tork, Pennsylvania and Virginia, on bond and simple contract, and that he was indebted to subjects of Great Britain, on bond and simple contract. of the state, some on bond, and others on simple con-
    
       And it is also stated, that on the 17th day of July, in the year 1772, the said Maihezv Ridley, for a debt then justly due, did sign, seal, and deliver to a certain William Vanderstegen, his writing obligatory, whereby he acknowledged himself to be held and firmly bound unto the said Vanderstegen, in the sum of 5,000/. sterling money of Great Britain, to be paid by the said Ridley, his heirs, executors and administrators to the said Vanderstegen, when thereunto he should be afterwards required, which writing obligatory is conditioned for the payment of 2,500/. like money, on the 21st day of August next after the date of the said bond; and that the said bond still remains in full force, and that the money therein mentioned hath not been paid or any way satis- • fied. It is also stated, that the said Vanderstegen, at the time of the executing the said writing obligatory, ever since hath been, and yet is, a subject of the King of Great Britain, and residing in foreign parts, to wit, in the island of Great Britain.
    The following questions are submitted to the court under the act of assembly passed at November session, 1785, entitled “ An act to alter and amend the law in certain cases,” and the act of assembly passed' in the year 1715, entitled “ An act for the better administration of justice in testamentary affairs,” &c. c. 39. s. 42. and the act passed in the year 1729, c. 24. s. 15.
    1. Whether the state is entitled to a preference in payment by the administratrix, to all creditors, or to all creditors, citizens of the state, or foreigners, on simple contract, or on such specialty debts ? ,
    2. Whether the citizens of the state are entitled to a _ J preference, to all other private creditors, or only to all foreign creditors; if not, whether citizens of the state are not entitled to a preference on specialties to citizens of the United States, or foreigners on simple contract? 3. In what manner is the administratrix to pay the state, and the other creditors of Mathew Ridley V
    
    Martin, Attorney-General.
    Hollingsworth, Att. for M. £5? S.
    
    Cooke, Att. for W. J. £i? M. and for S. S.
    
    Gantt, Att. for F. £s? Stoddert.
    
    
      
       This part of the statement was added at May term, 1793.
    
   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 his lifetime.

4. That all bonds, whether to citizens or foreigners, before the 11th of March, 1786, are to be preferred in payment by the administratrix, to bonds executed since the 11th of March, 1786.

At October term, 1793, the following form was adopted by the court, to wit:

And for that the said C. by her pleas aforesaid, doth not deny but that the writing obligatory aforesaid mentioned in the declaration of the said Murray and Sansom, is. the deed of the said Mathew Ridley, nor but that the debt aforesaid in the said writing contained, is a just debt, yet unpaid and not satisfied or discharged; and hath said nothing in bar or preclusion of the action aforesaid of the said M. ÍS? S., but the matter aforesaid by her the said C. above pleaded and stated in the case aforesaid filed between the parties in this cause, and that she hath no goods or chattels which belonged to the said M. at the time of his death, come to her hands, except goods and chattels to the value of the sum of 1,587/. 19i. 4d. current money, to be administered, and which are bound, liable to, and charged, in the first place, with the payment of the said debt due to the state of Maryland, and to the said debt due to the said William Vanderstegen from the said M. in the pleas and case aforesaid mentioned: and the court here being of opinion on the said pleas and case stated, that the said C. ought in the first place to pay and satisfy, out of the assets in her hands, or that shall hereafter come to her hands to be administered, of the estate of the said M. R. the debt due aforesaid to the said state of Maryland, and in the next place the debt due as aforesaid to the said William Vanderstegen; and out of the residue of the assets of the said M. R, that shall come to her hands, after satisfaction of the said debts to the said state and W. V. the said C. ought to pay the said M. is? S. the plaintiffs, and all other the creditors of the said M. R. mentioned in her pleas aforesaid, without preference to any, their respective debts aforesaid, if so much of the assets of the said M. R. shall come to her hands to be administered ; and if so much of the assets of the said M. R. shall not come to her hands to be administered, as will pay and satisfy all the creditors of the said M. R. mentioned in the pleas aforesaid, then the said C. ought to pay out of the said assets, to each of the said creditors, an equal proportion or dividend thereof according to the amount of their said respective claims : and because it appears to the court here, that the said C. hath no assets in her hands of the estate of the said M. 2?. to satisfy the said M. S., the plaintiffs, their debt aforesaid, or any part thereof. Therefore it is considered by the court here, that the said M. S. do recover against the said C. the said sum of 2,000/. current money, their debt aforesaid, so as aforesaid confessed, of the goods and chattels which belonged to the said M. 2?. at the time of his death, which shall hereafter come to the hands of the said C. to be administered, (after payment and satisfaction of the said debt? due from the said M. 2?. to the state of Maryland, and to the said William Vanderstegen,) to be released on the payment of , to be levied of the said goods and chattels, if so much shall come to the hands of the said C., as will pay the said sum of ," and all" other the creditors of the said M. 2?. mentioned in the pleas aforesaid : but if so much of the goods and chattels of the said M. 2?. shall not come to her hands to be administered, then to be levied such equal proportion of the said assets as the said sum of shall bear to the whole amount of the debts due from the said M. R. mentioned in the said pleas, contracted since the passing of the said act of assembly, pleaded by the said C.; and the said C, in mercy, &c. Vide 2 Harr. Ent. 91.  