Sanborn, David M., 1801-1873

David Marston Sanborn of Baltimore, Maryland. Sanborn was born in New Hampshire in 1801 and became a physician after graduating from Bowdoin College. His first wife, Esther, died in the late 1850s. They had one daughter, Martha Sanborn Hood. In 1863, Sanborn married a twenty-year old woman, Amanda Jester, forty years his junior. After several years, they drifted apart, and Amanda spent prolonged periods of time with her family in Delaware. Sanborn was a landowner in Baltimore City and Howard County, owning at one time five houses in the city and two farms in Howard County. He died after a prolonged illness on July 24, 1873 and was interred at Elkridge Landing.

Before David M. Sanborn's death, he turned over the deeds and title to everything he owned to his nephew Isaiah S. Lang, and named him executor of his estate. When Isaiah arrived in Baltimore, Sanborn's widow and daughter thought that he had come to help them with the affairs of the estate. They were surprised to learn that Isaiah intended to assert his claim and dispose of the property. Amanda and Martha hired an attorney who brought suit against Lang on behalf of Amanda and Martha asking that the deeds be declared invalid and that the doctor's property be restored to his widow and daughter. In February 1874, the Circuit Court of Baltimore City handed down a decree denying the claims of Amanda and Martha Hood upon the estate of Dr. David Sanborn. Justice Pinckney expressed his condemnation of Dr. Sanborn's acts but went on to say that the deeds were bona fide and within the law and were therefore valid. This decision was appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals. On July 1, 1874, the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, after having read the proceedings of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City and hearing the arguments of both attorneys, overturned the decision of the lower court (Court of Appeals of Maryland 41 Md. 107; 1874). They found that a husband could strip himself and his wife of all his possessions at will but he could not do so with the sole and fraudulent intent to deprive her of the property and to keep her from his estate.