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

334 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
gard to which he must, of course, be able to speak with more
certainty than any one else. In the Maryland Ch. P/., 94, it
is said, the writ will be discharged, if, on the hearing it ap-
pears that the answer fully denies the existence of the claim, or
the intention to leave the state. Lord Eldon in the case of
Jimsiuck vs. Barklay, 8 Vez; 595, said, if the writ was granted
upon affidavits of declarations, or facts, as evidence of the in-
tention to go abroad, the affidavit of the defendant denying the
intention would be of no avail. And in the cases of Dunham
vs. Jackson, 1 Paige, 629, and Mitchell vs. Burch, 2 Paige,
606, the Chancellor seemed to consider that the fate of the ap-
plication for the writ, in the one case, and the motion to dis-
charge it in the other, would depend upon the admitted or un-
denied intention of the party to leave the state before the de-
cree could be made effectual against him. In Thomas vs. Hal-
sey, 7 Johns. Ch. Rep., 189, the answer was permitted to be
read on a motion to discharge the writ, though the time for
filing exceptions to it had not expired, and was held sufficient
to remove the ground for the writ, even if well sustained by the
bill and the accompanying affidavits. In this case the Chan-
cellor considers it proper, in view of the positive denial in the
answer of the intention to leave the state imputed to the defend- .
ant by the bill, and of the other defences taken in the answer,
to grant the motion, and will pass an order accordingly.
WM. P. PRESTON and WM. ALEXANDER for Complainant.
R. JOHNSON and J. M. CAMPBELL for Defendant.
[The charges of the bill having been sustained by proofs
taken under the commission, a decree was passed on the "15th
of May, 1848, divorcing the parties a mensa et thoro, and by
agreement of the parties, allowing the wife the sum of $500 in,
Keu of all claim for alimony.] *
 

  		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 334   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