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

32 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
It appears, however, that the witness has been discharged
under the insolvent laws, and as this discharge releases him
as to his future earnings, and all other acquisitions except those
mentioned in the act of assembly; and as the discharge is in-
operative as regards his foreign creditors, he is said to be in-
terested in having the plaintiffs, who are foreign creditors, paid
rather than the defendants, Winn and Ross, who are citizens of
this state.
This presents a question of some difficulty, but I do not deem
it necessary to express an opinion upon it, as I think the release
which has been executed by the plaintiffs in this case, removes
the objection to his competency.
The words of the release are, that the plaintiffs "do hereby
release Robert B. Hancock, from all liability, or responsibility,
by reason of the event of this cause."
If by reason of the evidence of this witness, a portion of the
fund in question, is applied to the payment of the claims of
these plaintiffs, the responsibility of the witness, as an ac-
ceptor, is discharged pro tanto; and if the suit fails, the same
consequence would follow, to the extent of the dividend, which
would be applicable to the claims, if successful. The failure,
or the success, of the suit, is the event upon which the release
operates. The plaintiffs say in the release, let the event of the
suit be as it may, the witness shall not be prejudiced. If it
succeeds, he will be entitled to a credit upon his acceptances,
to the amount of the recovery, and if it fails, he is to be re-
leased to the same extent. This must be the construction of
release, or else the liability of the witness would depend upon
the event of the suit, in opposition to its terms, unless this is
the construction of the release, it would have no operation
further, than to discharge the witness from the cost of the
cause, an effect much more limited than the parties could have
intended, and much more restricted, than I think its terms fairly
import, which are to be taken in the strongest sense against
the party using them.
The question, however, which has occupied principally the
attention of the council in the argument; and confessedly 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 32   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