Gibson's Case
Opinion of the Court
It has been the practice of this court, for a long time, in a great variety of cases; but, particularly in creditors’ suits, to have its decrees and orders carried into effect by a kind of occasional executive agents, called trustees; who perform offices, in many respects, entirely analogous to those of the regular executive officers of the courts of common law; and similar to those which, in the English Court of Chancery, are performed by the regularly constituted officers of that court, called masters in chancery. The trustees of this court hold a place under it, and discharge their duties in a manner entirely unknown to the English chancery system. The principles by which they have been governed have grown out of the nature of the cases in which they have been employed; and, although often modified, as propriety and convenience seemed to suggest, they cannot yet be regarded as being as well settled, and as generally understood as the nature of the subject requires.
Trustees appointed and employed by this court have always been considered as its ministerial officers ; and, in whatever way they may have originated, the power to employ such agents having been recognised and affirmed by several legislative enactments, it may be now considered as finally and firmly established.
In making the selection of a person to be employed as a trustee, the court exercises a sound discretion upon a view of the whole case; and as the Chancellor may allow himself to be actuated by feelings of benevolence upon such occasions, where he can do so without injustice to any one, he has therefore, as before observed, appointed the widow as trustee, that she might obtain the commissions for the benefit of herself and child. The recommendations of the parties are always attended to, and allowed to have their due weight as to numbers, amount of interest, and reasons assigned; where the parties are silent, it has been usual to appoint the solicitor of the plaintiff as trustee; but a plurality of trustees is never appointed except on special application by petition, motion, or suggestion.
According to the common law, no public officer was permitted to take any fees for the performance of his duty, except such as were expressly, allowed by law, as a compensation for his trouble. Yet it appears, that judicial, as well as ministerial officers were allowed to make title to certain fees and perquisites by usage, and custom; and although it would seem, that no petty pecuniary charge should be permitted to intercept an extension of mercy, intended to save the life of a fellow creature, yet it is said, that in England, if a person pleads his pardon, the judges may insist on the usual fee of gloves to themselves and officers before they allow it.
' The fees- of all regularly constituted ministerial officers have been regulated by law;
From which it may be inferred, that the lost standing order, of which this is a renewal, had been made in conformity to the act of assembly, and soon after it was passed. It appears, however, that although fees, which have been settled by the ancient course of the court, cannot be altered, but by an act of. the legislature,
But this act of assembly authorizing the allowance of a commission, as well as this rule by which that commission was graduated into the form of poundage fees, allowed to a sheriff for the sale of property taken in execution, it is evident, were both confined to sales made “for the purpose of paying the debts of deceased persons, or othersand consequently, although they applied as well to sales of mortgaged property as to sales in creditors’ suits, and the like; yet they did not extend to any case of á sale made of real, or personal properly, because of its indivisible nature, for the purpose of dividing the proceeds among those by whom it was held jointly or in common; nor do they apply to the case of a sale made, pending, a suit, of the property in litigation, because of its perishable nature, for the purpose of preserving its value to him to whom it may be determined to belong, by the final decree. Yet in these, as well as in all other cases, whether embraced by the act of assembly or not, the trustee has been allowed a commission, or compensated,for his trouble in one form or other. But by the existing standing order passed at March term, 1817, it is declared, that “ on sales under decrees or orders of the court, the following allowances to be made to trustees, &c. On the first three hundred dollars, seven per cent.; on the second, six per cent.; on the third, five; on the fourth, 'four; on the fifth, three and a half; on the sixth, three and a half; on the seventh and eighth, three; and on the ninth and tenth hundred dollars, two and a half' per cent. And three per cent, on all above three thousand dollars; besides an allowance for expenses not personal. The above allowance subject to be increased in cases of postponement, at the request of the defendants, or of extraordinary difficulty or trouble from other circumstances; and to be lessened in case of negligence, &c. at the discretion of the Chancellor.” This rule is expressed in the most comprehensive terms, and embraces all sales made by a trustee, under the authority of the court, for any purpose whatever.
The commission allowed to a trustee is given to him as a compensation for his trouble and risk in making the sale, bringing the
Considering the nature of the office of a trustee, it follows, that as on the one hand, his compensation may, because of the -discharge of his duties being attended with a very unusual degree of labour and risk, be increased; so, on the other hand, his compensation, because of his duties having been improperly or but partially performed, may be altogether withheld, or proportionably diminished. As where it appeared, that the trustee had been under, the necessity of making several journeys or voyages, or had already, and should thereafter incur much extraordinary trouble for the purpose of executing the decree, he was allowed a compensation, in addition to the commission specified by the rule.
In some cases the fund may, to a certain extent, be burthehed with double commissions, as in this instance; where the trustee dies after having actually received an amount of the proceeds of
Whereupon, it is ordered, that this trustee be and he is hereby allowed half commissions on the amount stated to have been received by him.
1785, ch. 72, s. 7; April 1787, ch. 30, s. 5.
Pue v. Dorsey. — This bill was filed on the 9th of June 1784, by Michael Pue, William Goodwin and Milcah his wife, and Eleanor Dorsey, surviving executors of Caleb Dorsey, against Edward Dorsey, son of Samuel. The bill states, that the plaintiffs’ testator being seized and possessed of a large real and personal estate in iron works carried on in copartnership with a certain Alexander Lawson, in May 1772, purchased the share held by Lawson, for which he agreed to pay the sum of three thousand pounds sterling; soon .after which the testator made a codicil to his will, wherein, among other things, is contained the following devise:
“ I give to my two sons, Samuel Dorsey, and Edward Dorsey, and their .heirs for ever, to be equally divided between them, to hold as tenants in common all and singular the furnaces and iron works, tracts, pieces and parcels of land, negroes, white servants, horses, cattle, wagons, carts, and stock, of what nature and kind soever, and all and singular the parts, shares, and proportions of the furnace and iron works, tracts, pieces and parcels of land, negroes, white servants, hoises, cattle, wagons, carts, and stock of what kind or nature soever, which I have lately purchased from, or contracted to purchase from, and of a certain Alexander Lawson, of Baltimore
The bill fiirther states, that after the death of the testator these devisees took possession of the estate so devised to them; but having failed to pay the purchase money, Lawson brought suit against the plaintiffs, as executors, and obtained judgment against them, and had issued execution thereon; that Samuel Dorsey, one of the devisees, died some time in the year 1777, intestate, greatly involved in debt, without having paid any part of the debt due to Lawson, and leaving the defendant, his heir at law, then a minor, about two years of age; that letters of administration on the estate of Samuel had been granted to his widow, who had paid debts due by him, to an amount greater than his whole personal estate; that the portion of the debt due to Lawson for which'the devisee; Edward Dorsey, was liable, had been in part paid, and that there remained due of that debt from the estate of the intestate Samuel, the sum of one thousand five hundred pounds sterling money with interest; for the payment of which his real estate, which had descended to the defendant, was liable. Whereupon it was prayed, that'so much of the real estate, which had descended, might be sold as would be sufficient to satisfy the debt then due from the estate of the intestate Samuel.
The exhibits filed with this bill were, the codicil to the will of the testator, Caleb Dorsey ; a short copy of the judgment obtained by Lawson against these plaintiffs; and a certificate from the'register of wills, that the personal estate of the intestate, Samuel Dorsey, had been overpaid to the amount of £248 14s. 7d. The defendant having been returned summoned, and appearing to be an infant, Edward Dorsey, son of Caleb, was appointed his guardian to appear, answer, and defend this suit on his behalf; who accepted of the guardianship;
4th November, 1784. — Rogers, Chancellor. — Decreed, with the assent of the said Edward Dorsey, son of Caleb, as guardian of the said Edward Dorsey, son of Samuel, that he the said Edward Dorsey, son of Samuel, by his guardian aforesaid, do set up and expose to sale at public vendue, the several parcels of land in the proceedings mentioned, or such part thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the complainants, &c. after giving six weeks’ notice thereof in the Annapolis and Baltimore newspapers, of the time and place of such sale, and the same when sold, &c. the said Edward Dorsey, son of Samuel, do and shall effectually convey and assure to the purchaser or purchasers thereof, their heirs and assigns, in fee, upon payment of the purchase money to the said Edward Dorsey, son of Caleb, as guardian aforesaid; that the guardian aforesaid shall, &c. satisfy the complainants, &c.; that the guardian afore
It appears that the trustee gave bond, and returned an account of his disbursements of the proceeds of sale, with which tire record closes. — Chan. Pro. No. 2, page 186.
Bond v. Bond. — On a bill filed on the 1st of October, 1783, a decree was passed 2d January, 1786, for a sale of real estate, which sale was directed to be made by a trustee in a manner precisely similar to that directed by the decree in the aforegoing case. — Chan. Pro. No. 2, page, 612.
In most of the proceedings about this time, it is stated that the person appointed “ accepted of lire guardianship.”
The King v. Stubbs, 2 T. R. 395; Land H. Ass. 104, note.
Ex parte Le Heup, 18 Ves. 226; Ex parte Ludlow, 2 P. Will. 635.
H. Clagget’s case, MS. 7th December, 1826.
Dowig v. Marvel, MS., 16th October, 1789.
Ex parte Margaret Black. — The petition filed 23d February, 1804, seta forth, that the late George Black, by his last will, declared in these words: “ I also direct and devise the farm that I bought of William ICeating, together with what land I bought of Simon Weeks, lying on the south side of the road leading from Black’s Cross Roads to the brick meetinghouse, to be sold, and the money arising therefrom to be applied to the payment of my debts; residue and remainder of my estate, both real and personal, I give and bequeath unto my son James Black, who I do hereby nominate and appoint executor of this my last will and testament, and I do also appoint him guardian to all my children which may not be of age at my decease— that James Black qualified as executor and overpaid the personal estate £1122 15s. id.-, that under an impression that he was, as executor, authorized to sell the land, so directed to be sold, he had accordingly sold it to James Welch; and had received a part of tile purchase money. After which, James Black, by his last will had appointed tile petitioner his executor, and died; that there was still a considerable balance due to James Black. Prayer, that the Chancellor would ratify what had been done, on the ground, that he might sanction that when done which he might have directed to be done; or that he would authorize a private sale to enable James Welch to become ihe purchaser so as to affirm and reassure his title, and to have the purchase money applied in discharge of the claim of the late James Black, &c. Upon which the following decree was passed.
4th February, 1804. — Hanson, Chancellor. — The said petition with the last will and testament of George Black were, by the Chancellor, read and considered; and provided the facts stated in the said petition be true ; — decreed, that the real estate of George Black in the petition and will mentioned, as devised to be sold, be sold according to the directions and provisions of the said will; and that Margaret Black, &c. be trustee, &c. &c.; she shall proceed to self either at public or private sale, and on such terms and conditions as she may deem most advantageous to the estate, &c. &c. “ Provided, and it is the true intent and meaning of this decree, that if it shall appear to the trustee, that the sale made by her deceased husband, James Black, to James Welch, was a fair and beneficial sale for the estate, that the trustee shall then confirm and agree to the same, and make report to the Chancellor; and on the Chancellor’s ratification and confirmation, and on the payment of the purchase money, the trastee shall by a good and sufficient deed convey to the said James Welch and his heirs, the land he pm-chased, which deed shall have the same effect as herein before mentioned.” (Ex parte Mary J. Bayard, by her next fiiend, order 22d March, 1802; and 1818, ch. 193, s. 9.)
The trustee, Margaret Black, reported her approbation of the sale made to Welch, which on the 28th November, 1805, by an order, was to be ratified nisi, &c., publication to be made in the Easton newspaper, “ or set up and continued three weeks at the door of the courthouse of Kent county before the end of December next;” which order was afterwards made absolute.
Bac. Abr. tit. Offices & Officers, (K).
Ex parte Ord, Jac. Rep. 94; Logan v. Fairlee, Jac. Rep. 193; Berry’s case, MS. 14th May, 1803; Chew v. Birkhead, MS. 30th June, 1798; Kilty v. Quynn, MS. 5th January, 1813, and 1st August 1815.
Edwards v. Buchanan, MS. 27th May, 1800; Kilty v. Quynn, MS. 5th February, 1805.
Annesley v. Ashhurst, 3 P. Will. 282.
Isaac Williams’ Estate, MS., 3d December, 1823.
Co. Litt. 368; 2 Inst. 209; 3 Jac. L. Dict. 24.
1763, ch. 18, s. 87, &c.
Dec. Rig. art. 30.
November 1779; ch. 25; 1826, ch. 247.
April 1787, ch. 30, s. 5; 1816, ch. 154, s. 2 & 4.
Ex parte Jephson, Prec. Chan. 551.
Dulany v. Brice, MS., 27th December, 1794; Dowig v. Marvel, MS., 16th October, 1789; Anderson v. Anderson, MS., 17th April, 1789; Dorsey v. Cooke, MS., 16th October, 1789; Taylor v. Casanave, MS., 11th March, 1819; Mildred v. Neil, MS., 26th February, 1788.
The Rendsberg, 6 Rob. Adm. Rep. 164; Wood v. Freeman, 2 Atk. 542.
The Rendsberg, 6 Rob. Adm. Rep. 168.
The King v. Crackenthorp, 2 Anstr. 412.
The Rendsberg, 6 Rob. Adm. Rep. 163; Hindman v. Clayton, MS., 8th March, 1805.
Millar v. Baker. — This was a creditors’ bill, filed on the 12th of February, 1796, to have the real estate of the late Christian Baker, lying in Frederick county, sold to pay his debts, &c. On the 2d of June, 1796, it was decreed, in the usual
8th December, 1796. — Hanson, Chancellor. — It is stated, that Jacob Scheisler contracted for the sale of a parcel of ground in Frederick county, to Christian Baker, for £ 50 on credit; that the contract was, that a deed be given on Baker’s executing a bond for the money ; that Baker took possession and died without having executed a bond, or taken a conveyance; but that, before his death Balter paid one year’s interest on the said £ 50, to Scheisler; that after Balter’s death his creditors obtained a decree for selling his real estate; that under the decree, the said lot, which had been improved by Baker, was sold with other property, in which Baker had a legal estate in fee ; that, since Baker’s death, Scheisler has neither received the consideration money, nor conveyed; but that he declares his willingness to convey, on receiving tlie money, although he will not file his claim in the Chancery Court.
On this statement, it appears unreasonable, that Scheisler will not exhibit his claim to the Chancellor; and that such exhibition would be convenient to all parties, by-saving the trouble and expense of a chancery suit, in which Scheisler might probably be compelled to convey on receiving his money. The Chancellor cannot direct money to be paid to Scheisler, unless he exhibits his claim, or is called to answer a bill or petition for conveyance. Upon the whole, the Chancellor thinks proper to declare, that, provided the above statement of facts be fiill and correct in every particular, it will be advisable for Scheisler to exhibit his claim to avoid inconvenience to himself and the parties interested in the trustee’s sale.
Sometime after which the case was again brought before the court.
2d September, 1797. — Hanson, Chancellor. — Ordered, that the sale made by Henry Kuhn, trustee of the real estate of Christian Baker deceased, as stated in his report here filed, be absolutely ratified and confirmed, no cause to the contrary, &c. although notice, &c.
Ordered likewise, that of the money arising from the said sale there be applied the sum of £14 13s. Od., for the costs of this suit as taxed by the register; that out of the said money there be allowed to the trustee, for his whole trouble and expense incurred, or to be incurred, in the discharge of his office, the sum of £36; that there be paid to the following creditors of the said deceased the sums of money set opposite to their names, with interest thereon from August 20th, 1796, to the time of payment.
Conrad Doll......£121 16s. 9d
(Then follows a list of twenty-three others.)
Ordered, that the said trustee, on the receipt of money from any of the purchasers of the aforesaid real estate, either immediately deposit the same in this court, agreeably to the directions of the decree; or without delay, distribute the same amongst the creditors aforesaid, according to their claims. And the attested written receipt of any of the said creditors shall be admitted in this court instead of so much money directed to be brought in.
Ordered, that the surplus of the money arising from the said sale remaining, after discharging the several sums herein before directed to be paid, shall be subject to the future order of this court.
After which, the vendor, Jacob Scheisler, having presented his claim against the estate of the deceased, the case was again brought before the court.
Matthias Buckey - - - £ 3 Is. 8d. Oct. 7th, 1793.
Jacob Scheisler ... 50 Os. 0d. May 1st, 1793.
Jacob Baltzell ... 75 Os. 0d. Oct. 8th, 1797.
It appears on calculation, that the money to arise from the sale, (provided the purchasers shall all fully discharge their bonds,) will be more than sufficient to discharge the costs,' commission already allowed, and claims against the said Baker, directed by the former and present order, to be paid, In consideration of the extraordinary trouble already, and to be incurred by the trustee, it is further ordered, that he be allowed, in addition to the aforesaid commission, whatever surplus of the purchase mobey may remain, after folly discharging the costs, and all the claims against the said Baker, with interest, directed by the present and former order, to be paid; provided he shall.prepare or have prepared, at his own expense, deeds to be executed by the aforesaid Scheisler and Baltzell, conveying unto him and his heirs the land, by them contracted to be conveyed to the aforesaid Baker, in trust, that he shall convey the same to the purchaser, or purchasers thereof under the original decree in this cause; or provided he shall procure conveyances from the said Scheisler and Baltzell to the said purchaser or purchasers after his receipt of the whole purchase money.
N. B. It may be proper for the said Scheisler and Baltzell to join the trustee in his conveyance to the purchasers.
Carroll v. Jones, MS., 14th September, 1821.
Lawson v. The State, MS., 3d July, 1810.
Berry’s Case, MS., 14th May, 1803.
Selby v. Selby, MS., 1st May, 1819.
1795, ch. 88, s. 6; 1813, ch. 102, s. 5; Bac. Abr. tit. Sheriff (I).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.