clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 19   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

RIDER VS. RIELY. 19
denial of the allegations, upon which the complainant's equity
is supposed to rest; and that therefore, the well established
principle, that two witnesses, or one witness with corroborating
circumstances, are necessary to overcome an answer responsive
to the bill, should not be applied to this case. It may be re-
marked, however, that if the complainant had reason to be-
lieve, that the defendant had practised too much reserve in his
answer, and that something was kept back, which if disclosed,
would have assisted the complainant's case, he would have
had recourse to the usual method to bring it out,—the rule be-
ing, that a defendant who submits to answer, must answer
fully and explicitly, and that he may be pressed by exceptions
until he thus answers.
But as I understand this answer, it does meet, and deny fully
and unequivocally, the allegation, that he was notified of the
agreement between the complainant and Hess, or that he knew
of the existence of any such agreement. He denies in the
plainest terms that could be employed, that he ever was in-
formed of, or reminded, of any such agreement, or that he
ever was notified or requested, either by the complainant or
Hess, "to pay or provide for the claim of the complainant
on said Hess, in any manner whatever." The answer admits,
that some time after Hess had applied for the benefit of the in-
solvent laws, the complainant called upon the defendant, and
asked him about the notes spoken of, as though he believed he
had a claim upon them, when the defendant told him he did
not know him in the transaction, and the conversation ended.
But this interview, even if it would amount to notice of an
assignment, which might well be doubted, was after the de-
fendant had paid to Hess, or upon his order, an amount ex-
ceeding his claim for building the house,—though for the rea-
son already stated, he was not entitled to be paid the entire
sum.
Being then of opinion, that the weight and effect of this
answer can only be overthrown by two witnesses, or one with
pregnant circumstances, let us for a moment look at the evi-
dence and circumstances, to see if such proof can be found.
The only witness, whose proof is relied on to establish the
fact of notice, is Samuel Hess, the party with whom the de-

 
clear space
clear space
white space

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 19   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


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.

©Copyright  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives