| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 333 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
BAYLY VS. BAYLY. 333 Baltimore County Court, acting upon the statement of the bill in this inspect, ordered the sheriff to detain the defendant in his custody until he should give bond, with approved Barely, in the penalty of five thousand dollars. Now, assuming that the defendant is not worth more than the sum stated in his answer, (and no affidavits have been taken to contradict him,) it a manifest, he would, or might be, subject to great difficulty — giving the bond required of him. In the case of Denton vs. Denton, Chancellor Kent felt the difficulty arising from the un- certainty of the amount of the alimony, and, consequently, the uncertainty of the sum for which to mark the writ of ne exeat, though he regarded the difficulty as not insuperable, as the. amount of alimony would have a material reference to the rank of the parties, and the property of the husband, and in that ease he was shown, by affidavits, to be worth $200,000. Bat here this writ is marked, if the answer speaks the truth, in a sum ten times as large as due value of the husband's property. Now, although it is to be assumed, in this case, that open a bill for alimony the writ of ne exent may be granted pendente lite, yet theiw can be no doubt, that some caution and jealousy is te be observed in the application of the rule, test great inpistice may be done to the party against whom it issues. 2 Story's Com.. on Equity, section 1468. This is a case, then, ia which the writ issued uponthe ex parte application of the wife, verified alone by her affidavit, be- fore a decree had passed esatablishing her right to alimony, and in which her right is disputed by strong statements in the An- swer imputing gross misconduct to her. The allegation of an intention to remove from the sbate, is positively denied by the defendant, and the question now is, whether, according to the case as presented by bill and answer, the writ shall, or shall not, be discharged. It would seem, upon principle, that where the writ issues upon the naked unsupported oath of the complainant, it should be discharged upon the counter oath of the defendant, and es- pecially this seems reasonable and proper when the point of difference has reference to the intention of the defendant, in re- |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 333 View pdf image (33K) |
|
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.
Maryland State Archives