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

UNION BANK VS. KERR AND GLENN. 486
the defendant is doubly vexed. The petition therefore prays
for an order to compel the complainant to elect between said
appeal and this suit.
Upon the hearing of this petition, the following opinion, was
delivered and order passed: ]
THE CHANCELLOR :
This case is brought before this court, upon the petition of
the defendant, Kerr, to compel the plaintiffs to elect between
this suit and an appeal prosecuted by them to the Court of Ap-
peals, from a judgment rendered in favor of the petitioner, by
Baltimore County Court, in a certain action of assumpsit, in-
stituted by the petitioner, in that court, against the plaintiffs,
on the 28th of April, 1847, and in which action, a verdict and
judgment had been rendered in favor of the petitioner, before
the present bill was filed.
The bill in this case, which was filed on the 4th of August,
1849, prays, that the defendants, Kerr and Glenn, may be re-
quired to interplead and settle their respective rights and de-
mands, not only with respect to the sum of money for which
Kerr recovered the judgment in the action of assumpsit, But
that they shall, in like manner, interplead and settle their re-
spective rights to certain promissory notes, and bilk of ex-
change, held by the complainants, to which the complainants
claimed no title, and on account of which, the petitioner. Ken,
had commenced against the complainants, an action of trover
and conversion, in Baltimore-County Court, and which action
is still depending in that court.
With regard to the money for which the petitioner, Kerr, has
recovered a verdict and judgment, it is conceded the bill of in-
terpleader comes too late, the rule being, that a bill of this de-
scription should not be delayed until after a verdict or judg-
ment, has been obtained. 3 Darnel's Ch. Pr., 1756.
But it does not, in my opinion follow, that because the
complainants in the bill, have comprehended a subject, in re-
spect of which they are not entitled to the aid of the court,
that it will not be extended to them with reference to another

  		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 465   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