Betson v. Turnball

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Betson v. Turnball

2 Del. Cas. 353, 1817 Del. LEXIS 25

DecidedAugust 28, 1817

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Del. Cas. 353 (Betson v. Turnball) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Chancery of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Betson v. Turnball, 2 Del. Cas. 353, 1817 Del. LEXIS 25 (Del. Ct. App. 1817).

Pincite

Opinion

[The Chancellor.]

The evidence in this cause negatives any presumption of payment. The weight of it, in my mind, is against such presumption, and I think there is a stronger presumption against the payment than in favor of it.

The land has been constantly bought subject to this legacy. William Stidham, the administrator of Lucas, at the time he sold the land of Lucas by order of the Orphans’ Court, set up this legacy to frighten purchasers, that he might obtain the land at an under price. It does not follow, though, that, because his motive was wrong, the allegation was unfounded. However, it did not rest on him alone. All the family seemed to consider the legacy to be unpaid, and so all the purchases were [on that basis.] I can come to no absolute certainty, but the weight of the testimony is in favor of the claim; the presumption is in favor of it, without any matter or thing to rebut it that cannot admit of some explanation, not perhaps satisfactory, but possible.

There must be a decree for complainant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[The Chancellor.]

The evidence in this cause negatives any presumption of payment. The weight of it, in my mind, is against such presumption, and I think there is a stronger presumption against the payment than in favor of it.

The land has been constantly bought subject to this legacy. William Stidham, the administrator of Lucas, at the time he sold the land of Lucas by order of the Orphans’ Court, set up this legacy to frighten purchasers, that he might obtain the land at an under price. It does not follow, though, that, because his motive was wrong, the allegation was unfounded. However, it did not rest on him alone. All the family seemed to consider the legacy to be unpaid, and so all the purchases were [on that basis.] I can come to no absolute certainty, but the weight of the testimony is in favor of the claim; the presumption is in favor of it, without any matter or thing to rebut it that cannot admit of some explanation, not perhaps satisfactory, but possible.

There must be a decree for complainant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Del. Cas. 353, 1817 Del. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/betson-v-turnball-delch-1817.