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

NOWLAND VS. GLENN. 369
swers of the defendants, that any serious, or indeed, any objec-
tion is made to this prayer, the ground taken in the answer being,
that the delay of the plaintiff in this case in bringing forward
the evidence of the payments, and the release, ought to subject
him to a proportion of the expenses incurred by the complainant,
in the case in which the decree passed.
The decree referred to, and which this bill seeks to open, and
set aside, was passed during the sittings of the March term
last, and though the bill in this case was not filed until after the
close of (.he sittings of that term, it was filed before the end of
the term, which did not expire until the commencement of the
then ensuing July term, and, consequently, before the decree
was enrolled, and whilst it remained under the control of the
court. Burch vs. Scott, 1 Gill & Johns; 393; Hatton vs.
Weems, 12 Gill & Johns., 104.
The court then having the right to open, and vacate or re-
form the decree, no difficulty would be felt in doing so, under the
circumstances of this case. Even if the answer objected to it,
which, however, it does not, the defendants only insisting that
the plaintiff, for the reasons stated, should pay some proportion
of the costs in the former case. There is some little difficulty
in adjusting this matter of costs, but I am of opinion, that the
most equitable settlement of the question will be, to leave the
parties in both cases to pay their own costs. Crawford, upon
the payment in full to him, should have discontinued proceed-
ings in the first case against the land purchased by the com-
plainant in this case, and this complainant is in some default,
in keeping from the knowledge of the defendants in this case,
his receipts and release, until May, 1848, when he first com-
municated with them upon the subject, a decree will be passed
accordingly.
JOHN C. GROOME for Complainant.
JAMES MALCOLM for Defendants.

  		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 369   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