clear space clear space clear space white space
 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 586   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
clear space clear space clear space white space

586 INDEX.
1. A plaintiff suing at law and in equity at the same time, and for the
same matter, will be compelled to elect in which court he will pro-
ceed. The reason and object of this rule is, to relieve a defendant
from the "double vexation" of defending himself in two courts, against
the same demand, and to avoid the clashing of jurisdiction, which
would result from a jury finding a verdict one way, and the Chancellor
deciding anothor. Bradford & Williams vs. Williams et al., I.
2. The party put to his election, will be allowed a reasonable time to de-
termine. This time seems now to be eight days. Ib.
3. If a plaintiff refuses to elect, his bill will be dismissed with costs. Ib.
4. Any decisive act of the party, with knowledge of his rights and of the
facts, such as asking to have a commission remanded upon any ground
determines his election. Ib.
5. The rule as to election, cannot be evaded by mingling other grounds of
complaint in the action at law, with that which is comprehended in
the bill in equity, where the real substantial ground of complaint is
the same in both courts. Ib.
6. One of several defendants, without the concurrence of the rest, has the
right to compel an election. Ib.
7. Where a partnership still subsists, to authorize either partner to apply
for an injunction, and the appointment of a receiver, he must be pre-
pared to show a case of great abuse or strong misconduct. Query,
should not the bill likewise ask for a dissolution of the partnership?
O'Bryan vs. Gibbons, 9.
8. After dissolution, the objection to an injunction and the appointment of
a receiver is not so strong. But to induce the court to exert this strong
authority, some urgent and pressing necessity must be shown. Ib.
9. Upon the motion to dissolve, the court cannot decide that the contract
of dissolution is void. This contract transferred the legal title to the
defendant, and this court is always reluctant to interfere in opposition
to the legal title, and will only do so in case of fraud, clearly proved,
or of imminent danger. Ib..
10. Bill for the sale of lands, held in common by plaintiffs and defendants.
Demurrer on the ground that the bill was for a partition, under the
act to direct descents, or was addressed to the general power of the
court to make partition, and that the bill was not in form under the
act of descents, and was otherwise defective. Also, that the name of
the lands to be sold was not stated. HELD—
That it is a proceeding under the act of 1831, ch. 311, sec. 7. By
the act of 1785, ch. 72, sec. 12, the court is empowered to sell
lands, in which infants are interested. That provision is extended
by the act of 1831, to cases where the parties are of full age. To
give the court jurisdiction under these acts, the bill should allege
that a sale would be for the advantage of the parties, and the al-
legation must be established by admission, if the parties are of

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 586   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  

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

©Copyright  August 02, 2018
Maryland State Archives