| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 590 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
590 INDEX. PRACTICE IN CHANCERY— Continued. 40. As a general rule, no claim should be stated or noticed by the Auditor, unless filed in the cause in which the fund is to be distributed; but when he is referred to claims filed in another cause by some sufficient designation, and is instructed to state them, there can be no reason why he should not do it, as it would prevent the necessity of shifting claims, or the vouchers of claims from one cause to another, and thereby obviate much inconvenience. Winn & Ross vs. Albert and Wife, 169. 41. Objection to the jurisdiction of this court may be taken either by way of exception, or by an amended answer. Hughes vs. Jones, 179. 42. Where the complainants, by their bill, asserted their title under the will of a testator, and claimed relief accordingly, and also stated every fact necessary to enable them to recover as his personal representa- tives, it was HELD— That under the prayer for general relief, they were entitled to re- cover as the personal representatives of the testator, though they might not be so entitled according to the specific prayer, or the precise character in which they present their claim. Wooton vs. Burch, 190. 43. Their title, as personal representatives, is a conclusion of law, founded upon the statements of the bill, and it is well settled, that where faets are stated, upon which legal conclusions arise, these legal con- clarions need not themselves be stated. Ib. 44. Though a complainant in equity may read a portion of an answer, and is not bound, as he would be at law, to read the whole, yet he will ; not be showed to read a passage from the answer for the purpose of fixing the defendant with an admission, without reading the explana- tions and qualifications by which the admission may be accompanied. Glenn; vs. Randall, 220. 45. The bill alleges that the deeds sought to be vacated as fraudulent, are destitute of any valuable consideration of any description; and the defendants are expressly asked to discover what consideration was paid, and to whom; and the answer admits that a part of the pur- chase money was paid after that execution of the deeds, in discharge of the debts of the grantor, assumed by the grantees, a part having been previously paid. HELD— That the plaintiff should not he permitted to catch hold of the ad- mission that the consideration: was not all paid to the grantor at " the time of and prior to, the execution of the deeds, and exclude that portion of the answer which states how and when it was paid. Zh. , ' 46. If a plaintiff chooses to read a passage from the defendant's answer, he must read ail the circumstances stated in the passage, and if the passage" so read contains* reference to ally other passage, that must be read also. Ib. 47. The proper way to bring tile question of privileged communications be- fore a court of equity, is for the witless, when he declines answering |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 590 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