SMITH v. BRODHEAD'S EX'RS, 4 U.S. 115 (1792)
U.S. Supreme Court
SMITH v. BRODHEAD'S EX'RS, 4 U.S. 115 (1792)4 U.S. 115 (Dall.)
Smith
v.
Brodhead's Executors.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
January Term, 1792
THIS cause was tried at Berks, Nisi Prius, in October 1791, when the jury found the following special verdict:
The general question was, whether the bond of a feme covert, bound her estate, in the hands of her executors, under the circumstances stated, in the special verdict?
For the plaintiff, the case was discussed on several grounds: 1st. That a Court of Chancery would give relief upon the bond. 2d. That to prevent a failure of justice, the Courts of Pennsylvania will amplify their jurisdiction, upon principles of equity. 3d. That the will of the testatrix, directing the payment of debts, would make the bond a charge on the executors, as a debt in equity. And the following authorities were cited to show the principle, on which a Court of equity would interpose; and the extent to which the Courts of Pennsylvania had exercised an equitable jurisdiction. 1 Vez. 517. 163. Prec. Ch. 328. Gilb. Eq. 83. 2 Vez. 193. Brown. Chan. 20. 2 Atk. 68. 1 T. Rep. 5. Pow. on Cont. 89. 1 Dall. 213, 4. 339, 340. Eq. Rep. Gilb. 84. 1 Dall. 17. 72. 428. 2 Vern. 225. Doug. 53. Cowp. 201. 4. The executors being bound to pursue the directions of the will, the devisee ought not to be permitted to resist it.
For the defendant. A Court of Chancery would not do that for the plaintiff, which would be the consequence of a general judgment in his favour. The wife's engagements have never
been satisfied in equity, beyond her personal estate, and the rents and issues of her real estate; but a general judgment in Pennsylvania, would bind the real estate absolutely; so that it might be taken in execution and sold. If, indeed, this were a Court of equity, the defendant might make many matters appear to rebut the plaintiff's equity, which it is too late to urge on a special verdict. And this Court, as a Court of common law, will never consider bonds as appointments, when the party could not legally enter into a bond. 2 P. Wms. Norton v. Turril. 1 Br. Ch. 16.
Cur. adv. vult. [Footnote 1]
FootnotesFootnote 1 The Reporter has not been able to trace the decision of this cause.
U.S. Supreme Court
SMITH v. BRODHEAD'S EX'RS, 4 U.S. 115 (1792) 4 U.S. 115 (Dall.) Smithv.
Brodhead's Executors. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. January Term, 1792 THIS cause was tried at Berks, Nisi Prius, in October 1791, when the jury found the following special verdict: