Majority
Headnote
Where a will directed co-partnership debts to be paid in the following words: “ I order and direct my said executor to pay and divide the same to and among the creditors of the late firm of C. & M’C. of the city of New York, curriers, to whom I, as one of the said firm, may be indebted at the time of my death rateably and proportionally, according to the amount of their several and respective claims and demands, so far forth as he shall be able conveniently to ascertain the same; and with a view to free this subject from all embarrassments, I will and direct that my executor shall cause an advertisement to be inserted for one month in two of the daily papers of the city of New York, notifying the said creditors of this order and direction and that such as come in at the end of the said month and produce their claims, duly authenticated, shall be entitled to their dividends and all others shall be excluded from any participation in the same. All debts of whatever grade to be placed on an equal footing.” Held, that this did not revive debts otherwise barred by time.This case is somewhat peeuliar. The will of Richard Cunningham is in the nature of an appointment under the will of his wife Gloriannah, by which he, in effect, appropriates the property left to him by that will to the payment of the debts of his late co-partnership of Cunningham & McCormick. Thus selecting a class of creditors for whose benefit he creates a trust. And it is such a trust as is authorized by the revised statutes. Still, it is a question whether the trust to pay the debts of the, partnership includes debts barred by the statute of limitations at the time of this testator’s death ?
expression of the will strongly indicates the intention not to make such a distinction or discrimination. He says: “ to pay and divide the same among the creditors of
The next question is, whether the statute had, in fact, run against the demands presented to the executor in consequence of his advertisement?
The debts due to the Mechanics’ Bank and to Hegeman (in judgment) were not affected by the statute of limitations, being debts of record. Nor is the debt to Brown, now represented by Ward, affected by the running of the statute, since this answer expressly avers a promise to pay within six years and the answer is uncontradicted—not having been replied to. So, with regard to the demand of Messrs. Ketchum and Fessenden, to the amount of one hundred and nineteen dollars, being a balance due them for costs of a suit pending at the time of the testator’s death, that is not affected by the statute; but the rest of their claim, fifty-two dollars and seventy cents, is confessedly outlawed. And such is also the case with respect to the note held by Phila Cunningham. Nothing is shown by her answer to take it out of the statute, except the expression in the will—and
The costs of all parties are to be paid, in the first instance, out of the four thousand seven hundred dollars ; and, then, the residue must be divided between the two judgment creditors and the two simple contract creditors Ward and Messrs. Ketchum and Fessenden. The other fund, of three thousand eight hundred dollars, not being appropriated by the will, is to be applied in due course of administration. In the absence of individual debts of the testator Richard Cunningham, this money is to be applied to the balance that will remain due on the two judgments rateably as preferred debts and if more than sufficient to satisfy them, then, to go towards the balance due on the two simple contract debts before mentioned.
Decree accordingly.