Rules for paying the debts of deceased persons.That in paying the debts of any deceased person, the executor or administrator, who shall hereafter qualify and obtain letters testamentary or of administration in the orphans’ court in the county of Alexandria, shall observe the following rules; funeral expenses shall be first paid, next judgments and decrees against the deceased obtained in his lifetime in the said district shall be wholly discharged before any other claims; after such funeral expenses, judgments and decrees within the said district shall be satisfied, all other just claims shall be admitted to payment on an equal footing, without priority or preference, and in equal proportion; if there be not sufficient to discharge all such judgments and decrees, a proportionable dividend shall be made among the judgment and decree creditors aforesaid. In no case shall an executor or administrator aforesaid, be allowed to retain for his own claim against the deceased, unless the same be passed by the orphans’ court, and when passed it shall stand on an equal footing with other claims of like nature; and it shall be the duty of every executor or administrator aforesaid to give in a claim against himself, and no executor or administrator shall discharge any claim against the deceased, otherwise than at his own risk, unless the same shall be first passed by the orphans’ court granting the administration.
Persons obtaining letters testamentary, or of administration out of the district of Columbia, may prosecute claims within it.
Certified copies of letters testamentary, &c. to be evidence.Sec. 11. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for any person or persons to whom letters testamentary or of administration hath been or may hereafter be granted by the proper authority in any of the United States or the territories thereof, to maintain any suit or action and to prosecute and recover any claim in the district of Columbia, in the same manner as if the letters testamentary or of administration had been granted to such person or persons by the proper authority in the said district; and the letters testamentary or of administration, or a copy thereof, certified under the seal of the authority granting the same, shall be sufficient evidence to prove the granting thereof, and that the person or persons, as the case may be, hath or have administration.
Sessions of the courts of Alexandria, to be held in April and November.Sec. 12. And be it further enacted, That instead of the sessions as heretofore by law directed, the courts for the county of Alexandria shall, after this act goes into operation, commence on the third Monday in April, and on the fourth Monday in November in every year; and all cases, motions, process, causes, matters and things pending in or returnable to the sessions as heretofore fixed by law, shall be continued and returned respectively to the sessions of the said court hereby appointed to be holden.
Sec. 13. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the constables of the county of Washington in the district of Columbia, upon a capias ad satisfaciendum issuing out of the clerk’s office of the saidMaryland law of 1796 is, therefore, in force in the county of Washington; and the petitioners, if brought directly from the state of Virginia into the county of Washington, would, under the provisions of that law, be entitled to their freedom. By the act of Congress of the 24th of June, 1812, it was declared, “that hereafter it shall be lawful for any inhabitant or inhabitants, in either of the said counties, (Washington and Alexandria,) owning and possessing any slave or slaves therein, to remove the same from one county into the other, and to exercise, freely and fully, all the rights of property, in and over the said slave or slaves therein, which would be exercised over him, her, or them, in the county from whence the removal was made.” Ibid.
The court erred in refusing to give the fourth instruction prayed on the part of the petitioner, which asked that it should be submitted to the jury whether, from the evidence, the bringing of petitioners from Virginia to Alexandria, and the hiring them there, was not merely colourable, with intent to invade the law. Ibid.A wife having separated herself from her husband, for ill-treatment by him, applied to the county court of Prince George, Maryland, for alimony, which was allowed to her, pendente lite. The husband gave the wife a female negro slave, and some other property, in discharge of the alimony. She removed to Washington, hired out the slave, and afterwards, in consideration of a sum of money, and for other considerations, she manumitted, by deed, the slave, and her two infant children, the eldest not three years old. Some time after the arrangement between the husband and wife, a final separation took place between them, by a verbal agreement; each to retain “the property each had, and to be quits for ever,” and the wife relinquished all further claim for alimony. After the death of the wife, the husband claimed the female and her children as his slaves. Held, that they were free by virtue of the deed of manumission executed by the wife. Wallingsford v. Allen, 10 Peters, 583.