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 21   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

RIDER VS. RIELY. 21
to be secured by the notes, was still at his disposal, and he de-
sired the payments should be anticipated, if necessary to ena-
ble him to complete his contract. With what propriety could
he agree with the defendant, for advancing him money on
these notes, if he had stipulated with the complainant, that he
should have them ! And is it at all likely, that the defendant
would have made such advances, and then exposed himself to
the peril of serious loss, if he had been notified of the assign-
ment of these notes to the complainant!
I cannot bring myself to think so. Here, then, is the case
of an answer, explicitly denying the fact, upon which the
equity of the complainant's claim for relief rests. This an-
swer is contradicted by one witness, b'ut the conduct of that
witness, and the conduct of the defendant, are strong to create
doubt of the accuracy of the statement of the witness. And
therefore, giving the answer the effect to which it is entitled,
it follows, that the plaintiff has failed to make out a case for
relief, and his bill must be dismissed.
C. F. MAYER & WARD for plaintiff.
LATROBE & HORSEY for defendants.
HEZEKIAH LINTHICUM
vs. SEPTEMBER TERM, 1843,
WESLEY LINTHICUM.
[PAROL PROOF—CANCELLING OF BOND.]
UPON a bill filed by an obligor, in a sealed note against the executor of the
obligee, the note was. decreed to be cancelled upon proof that the testator
did not intend to exact payment of the money due upon it, but originally
intended it as a gift, or afterwards treated it as such, and abandoned it as
a debt,—although this proof consisted entirely of the parol declarations of
the testator, unaccompanied bv any other statements, orpapers-of any de-
scription.
Authorities on this subject reviewed and considered.

  		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 21   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