| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 571 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
INDEX. 571 JURISDICTION— Continued. That in cases where the want of jurisdiction is apparent, the delay and the circumstances under which the objection is made, can- not be regarded, but if there be any doubt on the subject of ju- risdiction, the court may take these circumstances into consider- ation, and be induced by them to give less heed to the objection than if it had been made at an earlier stage of the cause. J6. 12. It was further HELD—That in this case, the plaintiffs had not that plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law which would deny him the aid of a court of equity. 76. 13. The question of jurisdiction depends, exclusively upon the case made by the bill, and in determining the question whether this court can, or cannot, grant relief, recourse cannot be had to the statements of the answer, or to any other part of the proceedings. Ridgeway vs. Toram, 303. 14. The bill in this case was dismissed upon the ground that it did not make a case giving the court jurisdiction, because there were no al- legations showing either that the complainants had no remedy at law, or having such remedy, had exhausted it. 76. 15. Jurisdiction in cases of application for divorces was conferred upon the equity tribunals of this state by the act of 1841, ch. 262, to which two supplements have been passed, one in 1843, ch. 287, and the other in 1844, ch. 306. Brown, vs. .Brown, 316. 16. A mortgage was executed in accordance with the provisions of the act of 1833, ch. 181, and upon the petitions of the mortgage in conformi- ty with said act, a decree was passed by Baltimore County Court, aa a Court of Equity, providing for a sale of the mortgaged property, for the payment of the mortgaged debt, upon a bill filed to set aside this" mortgage as fraudulent as against creditors, but not seeking to interfere with the decree, it was HELD— That this Court has not the power to vacate this decree of Balti- more County Court, that court, by the terms of the act of 1833, ch. 181, having concurrent jurisdiction with this court to pass such decrees, and, therefore, the mortgage, the foundation of that decree, cannot Ie impeached here. McDowell vs. Smith, 370. 17. It is now settled, that if the purposes of a trust cannot be accomplished without the most serious delays and inconveniences, the court will di- rect a sale or mortgage of the estate, though a power is only given to raise money for these purposes in a different way. Conkling vs. Wash- ington University, 498. 18. A power or direction in a will to raise money out of the rents and profits of an estate to pay debts or portions has been held to include in it a power to sell and mortgage, when it is necessary to raise money tor the purpose Of the trust, upon the ground, that otherwise it might be impracticable to raise the money. Ib. 19. Even in cases where the party is not wholly without remedy, but the interposition of the court is called for, simply to accelerate the pay- ment of the debt, the authorities show, that the courts will grant re- |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 571 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