Kingsbury v. Phelps's Administrator

Ohio Supreme Court

Kingsbury v. Phelps's Administrator

1 Wright 370, 1 Ohio Ch. 370

DecidedAugust 15, 1833

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Wright 370 (Kingsbury v. Phelps's Administrator) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kingsbury v. Phelps's Administrator, 1 Wright 370, 1 Ohio Ch. 370 (Ohio 1833).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT.

It appears that sundry demands were given [379]*379to Phelps, to indemnify him for going security, under an agreement, that if Phelps had to pay, the demands should be his own.

It is well settled that the property in a pledge for indemnity is not changed absolutely by the pledge. In such cases as in mortgages, the pledgee or mortgagee is held subject to account, whatever may be the form of the contract. Such is the apparent right of the complainant here.

It is said the claim is a stale one, and is within the equity of the statute of limitations. That statute does not apply between a trustee and a cesPui que tnost, which is the case before us. The case is one of trust propertyin thehands of the defendant’s intestate, andseems a proper one for an account before a master, where the claims can be examined; and it is referred to a master for account.

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

BY THE COURT.

It appears that sundry demands were given [379]*379to Phelps, to indemnify him for going security, under an agreement, that if Phelps had to pay, the demands should be his own.

It is well settled that the property in a pledge for indemnity is not changed absolutely by the pledge. In such cases as in mortgages, the pledgee or mortgagee is held subject to account, whatever may be the form of the contract. Such is the apparent right of the complainant here.

It is said the claim is a stale one, and is within the equity of the statute of limitations. That statute does not apply between a trustee and a cesPui que tnost, which is the case before us. The case is one of trust propertyin thehands of the defendant’s intestate, andseems a proper one for an account before a master, where the claims can be examined; and it is referred to a master for account.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wright 370, 1 Ohio Ch. 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kingsbury-v-phelpss-administrator-ohio-1833.