| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 472 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
472 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. is successful, of objecting to the union of these parties, as plaintiffs, in the mode in which, perhaps, alone, it can be re- sisted, that is by demurrer. That was the mode in which the objection was presented in Cholmondely vs. Clinton, and it ap- pears to be settled, that if the parties having interests several and distinct, sue together, as co-plaintiffs, the objection must be taken by demurrer. Story's Equity PI., sec. 544; Water- town vs. Cowen, 4 Paige, 510. But, if the court, upon grant- ing the application of the bank, should allow the defendants to withdraw their answers and demur, then the delay and ex- pense already incurred, might have been avoided, if the bank had made its motion at an earlier period of the cause. If the application now made, is successful, parties situated as the bank is with regard to this case, may not choose to assume the relation towards it of a plaintiff, nor the responsibility for costs, which that relation may involve, until the proof has all been taken, and the probable fate of the controversy can be antici- pated. If in this case the bank is allowed to become a co-plaintiff, nothing can be fairer, and indeed it is understood to be con- ceded, that the defendants may answer anew, and thus new issues will be presented, and it may be, new evidence will be- come necessary. All this independently of the objections rest- ing upon the high and controlling authority of Lord Redesdale, is very objectionable, and, therefore, I am of opinion, the mo- tion must be refused, and shall so order. ] The following opinion upon the merits was delivered on the 11th of July, 1850, during the July term of the court. THE CHANCELLOR: The evidence in regard to the mental condition of Charles T. EIIicott, at the period of the execution of the will of July, 1831, and of the deed of February, 1832, is contradictory and inconclusive, and, therefore, if it was absolutely neccessary to decide upon the validity of those papers, upon the ground of his incapacity to dispose of his property, it is quite probable, |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 472 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