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

312 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
[The decree dismissing the bill was passed, in accordance
with the foregoing opinion, on the 2Ist of November, 1850,
and on the 30th of the same month the complainants filed a pe-
tition for leave to file a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill
of review. In this petition they state that since the filing of
the bill in this cause, and since the same was at issue, Toram,
the defendant, removed out of the state, and that they have been
informed and believe, that said Toram has sold the greater part,
if not the whole, of the personal property conveyed to him by
complainants, and that he has carried out of the state all his
personal property not so sold.
They farther state, that said Toram is now utterly insolvent,
and that they have received this information since the decree ;
but that before the hearing of the cause, and after it was at is-
sue, they had received information leading them to suspect his
insolvency. That they knew of his removal out of the state,
and of his having sold his property as above, after issue and
before the hearing.
They then state, that they were not aware, but utterly ignor-
ant, until after the decree was passed, of the importance of
averring, and proving his non-residence, his insolvency, and
his having sold, removed, and made way with his personal prop-
erty as above stated, and,, therefore, they pray leave to file a
supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review for the pur-
pose of introducing the above facts.
Upon the matter of this petition the following opinion was
delivered.]
THE CHANCELLOR:
The decree in this case was passed on the 21st of Novem-
ber last, and on the 30th of the same month, the complainants
filed their petition for leave to file a supplemental bill in the
nature of a bill of review, and as the decree had not then been
enrolled, the application is in conformity with the practice.
Young vs. Keighley, 16 Fez., 348.
The decree which by this petition the complainants ask leave
to review, was passed upon the ground that the bill did not

  		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 312   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