| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 591 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
INDEX. 591 PRACTICE IN CHANCERY— Continued. the interrogatory, to state his objection before the commissioners who return the commission with what is called the witness demurrer, and the question is then set down for argument. Chew vs. The Fanners' Bank, 231. 48. A petition asking leave to file a supplemental bill, in the nature of a bill of review, may be filed at any time before the decree is enrolled. Ridgeway vs. Toram, 303. 49. In this state there is no formal rule for the publication of testimony, as in England, but objections to the evidence are taken and considered at the hearing. Ib. 50. If the parties at any time before the hearing should discover new wi- dence, they will, upon application, be allowed to take it; and if such new evidence requires the bill to be amended, an order for that par pose will be passed, or, perhaps, it may be amended, and a supple- mental bill filed without an order, as a matter of course. Ib. 51. On an application for leave to file a supplemental bill, in the nature of a bill of review, it is not enough that the new facts were not known before the hearing, but it must appear that the party could not "ha.ve known them by use of reasonable diligence, for any laches or neglect, in this respect, destroys the title to relief. Ib. . ' 52. The imperfections in an original bill rendering a supplemental bill ne- cessary, may arise either from the importance of the& omitted fact not being previously understood, or from the. fact itself not-having come to (he knowledge of the party until after the bill was filed. Ib. 53. But a party will not be allowed to file a supplemental bill, in the nature of a bill of review, upon the ground that the importance of newly dis- covered evidence, was not understood until after the decree had pass- ed, when such evidence was known to hint, or, might have been known by the use of reasonable diligence in time to be used .when the decree passed. Ib. 54. G. and S. having been appointed, trustees to Sell certain property, in a cause in which they, as administrators of A. F., were complainants, and one R. F. was defendant," (old the same to said R. F. By the Auditor's report in that case, which was confirmed by the Chancellor, the sum of $1,208 76 was assigned to said R. F. Another bill was afterwards filed by the administrator of R. F., against the said trus- tees, to enforce the payment of this sum. HELD*— That the regular and proper course of proceeding, was by a peti- tion in the first cause to enforce the order of the Chancellor, rati- tying the report of the Auditor, and not by an independent bill. Frieze vs. Glenn & Stewart, 362. 55. That as the bill was for the payment of a specific -sum of money, and not for an account generally, though the plaintiff can have no decree the defendants cannot have one for their overpayment. Ib. 56. A decree is not considered as enrolled until the close of the term at which it was passed, which does not expire until the commencement of the ensuing term, and, therefore, a decree passed during the sit- |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 591 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