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

BRADFORD & WILLIAMS VS WILLIAMS. 5
for goods directed to be delivered to him, was upon one occa-
sion read in evidence against the principal, but that decision
was subsequently condemned, and may, as the Court of Ap-
peals say, in 11 G. & J., 34, 35, be considered as overruled.
And if a receipt given by an agent may not be read against
his principal, it is difficult to understand upon what principle,
a series of entries in the books of an agent, running over a
long lapse of time, can be used against him, without any at-
tempt to show the period or the circumstances under which the
entries were made.
Being, for these reasons, of the opinion, that the books, if
produced, could not be evidence, the application must be re-
fused.
The defendant's application is, that the complainants shall
be compelled to elect, whether they will proceed in this court,
or in the court of law.
The practice of compelling the plaintiff to elect, when he
is suing at law and in equity at the same time, for the same
matter, is said to have originated in an order of Lord Bacon,
according to which, double vexation is not admitted, and if the
party sue for the same cause at common law and in chancery,
he is to have a day given him to make his election, where he
will proceed, and in default of such election, to be dismissed.
18 order Bearnes' orders.
The reason of the rule, as stated in the books, is, that it
would be inconsistent with the ends of justice to permit a party
to proceed in this court and at law, at the same time, for the
same demand; for the jury may find a verdict one way and
the Master make a report a different way, which would occa-
sion such a clashing of jurisdiction as could never be endured.
See Livingston vs Kaine, 3 Johns. Chan. .Rep., 224.
The party when put to his election will be allowed a reas-
onable lime to determine in which court he will proceed, and
this reasonable time seems now to be eight days.
2 Daniel's Ch. Pr., 961, note. Rogers vs Vosburgh, 4
Johns. Ch. Rep., 84.
By the terms of the order, the plaintiff and his solicitor,
having notice thereof, shall within eight days after such notice
make his election in which court he will proceed; and if he

  		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 5   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  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives