Knox, Usher & McCulloh – 2

12 February 1801 – Response

John McCulloh was evidently premature in his payment.  Eddows had no re_dy at law against the executor of James.  If they could not have recovered at law against Knox, the surviving partner by reason of his insolvency, they might have had recourse to the estate of James in Chancery, but must have made the Probate request by the laws of Maryland.

I presume the officer will not allow the executors of John to charge the estate of James with the $1,200 paid to Knox.  Regularly Knox should have paid Ed down and proved his amount against James estate.

As the thing stands at present my advice is the executor of John is to commence a suit against Knox (after having obtained legal proof of his receiving the money) for money paid by mistake.

The executors of John must pass in the proper office an account of his administration on the estate of James.  The balance will be to be paid to the surviving executor of James or to James residuary legated as the directions of the will and circumstances of James estate may require.  If there should be debts of James unpaid, the executor of James will be entitled to recover this balance.  It will be the duty of John’s executors to account before the proper Tribunal to pay the balance agreeably to the device of that Tribunal.

Edwd Tilghman

 

McCulloh Papers, 1773-1848, Maryland Historical Society, MS 2110, microfilm reel 4, frame 14,15

Advertisements

Knox, Usher & McCulloh

11 February 1801 – Narrative of McCulloh partnership

There existed in Baltimore a copartnership under the firm of Knox, Usher & McCulloh, at the dissolution of which Wm Knox & James McCulloh were to collect certain debts and to discharge certain claims against the firm.  The accounts of the Partnership have never been finally settled.

James McCulloh died, Edward Pannell & John Mcculloh became executors to his estate.  A demand was made against Wm Knox at that time, surviving partner of Knox, Usher & McCulloh, by Phineas Bond for a debt due by them to Eddows Patric & Elliot of England.  John McCulloh under an impression that the estate of James McCulloh was indebted to Knox, Usher & McCulloh more than the amount called for by P. Bond, paid Wm Knox $1,200 for the purpose of discharging the same, but without the approbation of his colleague, Ed Pannell & before any specific claim was legally proven by Knox, Usher & McCulloh against the estate of James McCulloh

John McCulloh died & we as Executors to his estate have rendered our account to Ed Pannell the surviving executor to the estate of James McCulloh, who refuses to admit the payment  made Wm Knox by his colleague upon the principle of its being an informal transaction.

Are we liable for the $1,200 & if so what steps must be pursued to obtain the same from Wm Knox who refuses to refund it.  No receipt was given by Wm Knox for the money and the only evidence we possess of its having been paid him, is the entry in John McCulloh’s books where payment stands charged to the estate of James McCulloh.

[Signed by John’s sons] Sam McCulloh and Andrew McCulloh

McCulloh Papers, 1773-1848, Maryland Historical Society, MS 2110, microfilm reel 4, frame 13, 14