| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 18 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
18 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. that Hess, for bricks furnished under the contract, being in- debted to the complainant in a sum exceeding $2000, on or about the 1st of July, 1845, he, the complainant, applied to him for payment, at least in part, of this demand, or for secu- rity for payment. That thereupon, Hess, as by him expressly stipulated at the time he contracted with the complainant for the bricks, and as part of said contract, agreed with the com- plainant, that in pursuance of said original contract, he should receive. And the complainant assented, as by him originally agreed, to accept payment to the extent of $3000 of his de- mand for bricks furnished, and yet to be furnished from Riely, out of, and on account of the sum for which Riely was liable and indebted to Hess for said building. That at that time, and when the complainant reminded Riely of said agreement for the complainant's payment, there was an amount due, and becoming due, and payable for the building, from Riely to Hess, exceeding the amount of com- plainant's claim against Hess, provided by him as before stat- ed to be paid. That the complainant promptly thereafter no- tified Riely thereof, and requested and required him to pay and provide for (.he complainant's claim, out of the sum claim- able as aforesaid from him, the defendant, to Hess. That Hess, in like manner, notified Riely, and directed to him to pay the complainant's claim, which he promised to do accord- ingly, out of said liability to Hess, as the same should mature, and become due, to wit, in his three promissory notes, each for $1000, payable in one, two, and three years, respectively, from the 1st of November, 1845. And the bill prays for re- lief, commensurate with the case thus stated. In order to make out this case, therefore, two things must be proved or admitted,— First, that Hess did contract and agree to pay or secure the complainant, in the way alleged by him, and— Secondly, that the defendant Riely had due notice thereof, before he had paid to Hess, or upon his order, upon his con- tract with him, the amount thereby stipulated to be paid. It is said that the answer of Riely has not met the allega- tions of this bill, in that full, explicit, and frank manner, which is required to give the defendant the benefit of a direct |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 18 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives