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

546 INDEX.
ASSIGNMENT, ASSIGNOR AND ASSIGNEE— Continued.
further payments, not mentioned in the statement, he claimed a credit
therefor. HELD—
That the assignment to the defendant being made prior to the receipt
by him of the statement, from the defendant, and he not being in-
duced to make the purchase, by such statement, or lulled into false
security by it, there could be no sufficient ground for denying to
the defendant the benefit of the receipts. Hall vs. Purnell, 137.
8. If an innocent party is induced by the obligor to become the purchaser
of a bond, against which there are equities, it is a deceit upon him;
and he ought not to be subject to the same equity to which the obligor
was entitled against the obligee. Ib.
A8SUMPSIT.
It is a settled rule, even in the case of deeds, that if there be a condition
precedent, and it is not performed, and the parties proceed with the
performance of other parts of the contracts, although the deed cannot
take effect, the law will raise an implied assumpsit, upon which an
action of assumpsit can be maintained. Ridgeway vs. Toram, 303.
ATTORNEY.
1. Where the appearance of an attorney is entered on the record, it is con-
sidered as done by the authority of the party, and whatever is done in
the progress of the cause, is regarded as done by, and binding on the
party himself—the fidelity of the attorney in the discharge of his trust
being a question between him and the party for whom he undertakes
to act. Sethel Church vs. Carmack, 143.
2. Whatever is rinne by the attorney in the progress of the cauao, is con-
sidered as done by the authority of the client, and is binding on him.
Thomburg vs. Macauley, 425.
See PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS..
AUDITOR.
See PRACTICE IN CHANCERY, 40.
BILLS OF REVIEW.
See REHEARING, 1, 4.
BOND.
See ASSIGNMENT, &c., 8.
APPEAL BOND.
BONDS GIVEN BY HEIR ENTITLED TO ELECT.
See LIMITATIONS, 7, 8, 9.
CANCELLING- OF BOND.
See EVIDENCE, 7.
CAVEAT.
iSee LAND OFFICE.
CERTAINTY.
See DESCRIPTION OF LAND, 1.
CHARGE UPON LAND.
See WILL AND TESTAMENT, 2, 3.
CHOSES IN ACTION.
See ASSIGNMENT, &c., 3.

  		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 546   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