| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 387 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
McDOWELL VS. GOLDSMITH. 387 It has been argued by his counsel, that if the reasons given by the defendant, for not giving this information, were not sat- isfactory, exceptions should have been filed, and a fuller an- swer thus extorted from him, and there can be no doubt that his refusing to Answer, is not to be taken as an admission of the allegations of the bill, which have not been answered. But this rule of chancery practice does not exempt the defend- ant from some degree of suspicion, because of his declining to answer interrogatories, which might easily have been answered, and without, so far as the court can see, subjecting the defend- ant to the slightest annoyance or inconvenience. It will be seen, upon referring to the case of Joice and Wife vs. Taylor, 6 Gill & Johns., 54, that the court lay no little stress upon the caution displayed by (Be defendant in that case, in answering» or evading to answer, an allegation of the bill, and that it evi- dently had some influence upon the decision of the cause. The court cannot, however, shut its eyes to the extraordinary account given by the defendant, of his dealings with Mrs. Os- borne. It must strike the mind as strange, indeed almost in- credible, that transactions involving such large amounts of money, should take place with such utter disregard of the ordi- nary precautions, which persons having any regard for their in- terests, iusually observe. The defendant says, "he kept ho book of accounts," "in making his loans to the said Elizabeth. Osborne, he sometimes took her notes," "at other times, he would make a loose memorandum thereof, and again, he would suffer the loan to rest in the recollection of the parties." These statements are made with reference to the debt of $21,500, for which the mortgage of November, 1842, was given, but it does not appear that the defendant was more careful In his subse- quent transactions with Mrs. Osborne, or that he kept any ac- counts of the advances, which he alleges he made her, after November, 1842, and which constituted a part of the consid- eration of the conveyance of February, 1844. There is, un- questionably, about this whole case, a character of reckless care- lessness,, which is absolutely amazing, and which, in the eyes of prudent men, cannot fail to stamp it with suspicion. The parol evidence also, is strong in opposition to the deed.. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 387 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