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

442 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
not satisfied, and, therefore, shall decree an account with liberty
to the parties to take proof in reference thereto.
GRAFTON L. DULANEY for Plaintiff.
EDWARD HINKLEY for Defendants.
[An appeal has been taken in this case which is still de-
pending.]
JOHN WHITRIDGE
vs. SEPTEMBER TERM, 1850.
ROBERT A. DURKEE'S EX'S.
[RIGHTS Of SURETIES—CHANCERY PRACTICE.]
THERE can be no doubt of the right of a surety, after a debt has become duo,
to file a bill to compel the principal debtor to pay, whether the surety has
himself been sued or not.
A surety may resort to chancery, if he apprehends danger from the creditor's
delay, and compel the creditor to sue the principal debtor, though he would
probably be required to indemnify the creditor against the consequences of
risk, delay, and expense.
After a surety becomes chargeable, by a forfeiture of the contract, or its non-
performance by the principal, he may ensure a prompt prosecution, either by
discharging the obligation, and becoming, by substitution, entitled to all the
remedies possessed by the creditor, or he may coerce the creditor to proceed
by an application to a court of equity.
A surety in the bond of a trustee, appointed to make sale of certain lands for
the purpose of partition, filed a bill qwa timet in the equity side of Baltimore
County Court, against the executors of the trustee, praying for an account
and general relief. This bill was removed to this court, but the cause in
which the trustee was appointed, was not removed, but still remained, de-
pending in Baltimore County Court. HELD—
That though it was very clear that this court may, upon the bill which has been
brought here, administer the same relief which could have been adminis-
tered by Baltimore County Court, yet it is equally clear that the account of
the trust must be taken in the cause in which the trustee was appointed.
[The facts of this case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.]

  		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 442   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  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives