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

BROWN VS. BROWN. 321
years, no sufficient reason has been assigned, why within less
than three months from the date of the deed, this court should
be called upon absolutely to dissolve the marriage. It is not
alleged or proved, that any circumstances have transpired since
the execution of the deed, which render it necessary or proper,
that the relations of the parties as established by that instru-
ment, should be changed, and the court would be most reluct-
ant to do so, especially in the manner, and to the extent pro-
posed by this bill, unless a case of strong urgency was made
out, as the effect of such a change upon the rights secured by
the deed might occasion embarrassing, if not injurious, conse-
quences.
The third section of the original act, authorizes the courts of
equity, upon applications for divorce a vinculo matrimonii, to
decree them a mensa et thoro, if the causes proved are sufficient
to entitle the parties to such relief, and it has already been stat-
ed, that abandonment and desertion alone, without regard to
its duration, or the absence from the state of the party complain-
ed against, is sufficient cause for a divorce of this qualified char-
acter. But a decree of this description is rendered unnecessary,
and would, perhaps, be improper in this case, in consequence
of the deed of separation, by which the parties have placed
themselves, very much in the condition with respect to each
other, which the law would have empowered the court to do,
by decreeing a limited divorce. Hunt vs. De Blaquiere, 5
Bing., 520.
For these reasons, very briefly stated, I am of opinion, the
bill must be dismissed, and shall so decree.
J. J. SPEED for Complainant.
JAMES M. BUCHANAN for Defendant.
[The decree in this case was affirmed by the Court of Ap-
peals for the reasons assigned by the Chancellor,]

  		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 321   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  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives