| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 598 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
598 INDEX. RECORDING OF MORTGAGES— Continued evade the legislative will, in regard to the transfers of the title to per- sonal estate. Ib. , See MORTGAGES, &c,, 1, 2, 3, 4. REAL ESTATE. See DESCENT OF, 1. REHEARING, APPLICATION FOR. 1. There can be no doubt of the power of the court to grant applications to rehear causes, and for liberty to file supplemental bills, in the nature of bills of review, upon the ground of new matter discovered since the decree. The regular mode of presenting such application, is by pe- tition. Hughes vs. Jones, 289. S. It ia equally clear, that these applications address themselves to the sound discretion of the court, and do not rest upon a foundation of strict right which may not be disregarded. J6. 3. The court is at liberty to look into all the circumstances of the case, and if upon full consideration of them all, it comes to the conclusion, that opening the decree and rehearing the cause, would be productive of mischief to innocent parties, or, is for any other reason, inexpedi- ent, it may refuse to do so, though the facts, if admitted, would vary the decree. Ib. 4. The qualification entitling a party to a bill of review, upon the discovery of new matter, subsequent to the period when it could have been used, that the matter must not only be new, but such as the party could not have known by the use of reasonable diligence, is as firmly settled as the rule itself. Ib. 5. Any laches or negligence by the party making the application, will de- stroy his title to this kind of relief. J6. 6. This case had been pending for nearly eleven years, a great amount of testimony had been taken, and at great expense, and with the consent of both parties, had been submitted to the court after full argument by counsel. The witness, whose newly discovered testimony is now sought to be introduced, lived in the family of the uncle of the party making the application, from and before the year 1815 till 1821; and did not remove from the county where the cause originated, until long after its pendency, and has since resided in the city of Baltimore, and the petition does not state, that by the use of reasonable diligence, the knowledge of the new matter might not have been acquired in time to be used when the decree passed. HELD— That under these circumstances, it would be contrary to the settled rules of the court upon this subject to grant the application for a rehearing. Ib. 7. It is better that individual injury should sometimes be inflicted, than that rules established to prevent genera} mischief, should be broken down. Ib. REMEDY AT LAW. See JURISDICTION, 11, 12, 14. VENDOR'S LIEN, 1. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 598 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