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

292 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
of the 27th of March, 1851, in taking newly discovered testi-
mony, that the hearing of the cause should not be delayed, by
reason of said order. The defendant then objects to the grant-
ing of the application for a rehearing, and insists, that if her
objection should be overruled, that the Chancellor should im-
pose such terms on the complainant, as shall be consistent with
equity and good conscience.
THE CHANCELLOR :
THIS case is brought before the court, upon a petition to
open the order of the 27th of April last, and rehear the cause;
in other words, for liberty to file a supplemental bill, in the na-
ture of a bill of review, upon the ground of new matter dis-
covered since the order, and there can be no doubt of the reg-
ularity of this mode of proceeding, and of the power of the
court in a proper case, to grant the application. " Burch et
al. vs. Scott, 1 Gill and Johns., 393.
It is likewise equally clear, that these applications address
themselves to the sound discretion of the court, and do not
rest upon a foundation of strict right, which may not be disre-
garded. Dexter vs. Arnold, 5 Mason, 316.
The court is at liberty to look into all the circumstances of
the case, and if upon full consideration of all of them, it comes
to the conclusion, that opening the decree, and rehearing the
cause, would be productive of mischief to innocent parties, or
is, for any other reason inexpedient, it may refuse to do so,
though the facts, if admitted, would vary the decree. Young
vs. Keighley, 16 Vez., 348.
1m. this case, the bill was filed on the 11th of May, 1840,
and had been depending nearly eleven years, before the order
in question was passed. The estate of Jesse Hughes, the de-
fendant's testator, has been kept open all that time, because,
from the unliquidated nature of the claim, it was manifestly
impossible to set apart a sum certain to meet it. If, then, the
litigation is now reopened, and the parties on both sides per-
mitted to ransack the county again for evidence, it is impossi-
ble to say when it can be brought to a conclusion, and in the

  		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 292   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  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives