| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 602 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
SUPPLEMENTAL BILL—Continued to relief, but a confessedly bad title thus relied upon cannot be support- ed by a good title subsequently acquired which is sought to be intro- duced by way of supplement. Ib. 3. The plaintiffs in an original bill claimed title as grantees in a deed of trust for the benefit of creditors of an insolvent debtor, and were af- terwards appointed permanent trustees of the same debtor, under the pr insolvent laws. HELD— That they had a right to introduce their new title as such trustees by a supplemental bill. Ib. 4. An answer to a supplemental bill must be restricted to the matters stated in it, and a defendant has no right under pretext of answering the supplemental, to add to, or amend his answer to, the original bill. Swan vs. Dent Sf Richards, 111. 5. Exception to an answer on these grounds will be sustained. Ib. See PRACTICE IN CHANCERY, 50, 52. REHEARING, &c., 1, 4. SUPPLEMENTAL BILL IN THE NATURE OF A BILL OF REVIEW. See PRACTICE IM CHANCERY, 48, 51, 53. SURETIES. 1. There can be no doubt of the right of a surety, after a debt has be- come due, to file a bill to compel the principal debtor to pay, wheth- er the surety has been himself sued or not. Whitridge vs. Durkee, .442. 2. A surety may resort to chancery, if he apprehends danger from the creditor's delay, and compel the creditor to sue the principal debtor, though he would probably be required to indemnify the creditor against the consequences of risk, delay, and expense. Ib. 3. After a surety becomes chargeable, by a forfeiture of the contract, or its non-performance by the principal, he may ensure a prompt prosecu- tion, either by discharging the obligation, and becoming, by substitu- tion, entitled to all the remedies possessed by the creditor, or he may coerce the creditor to proceed by an application to a court of equity. Ib. 4. It has never been the practice of this court to require sureties in an ap- peal bond when excepted to, to justify in order to ascertain their suf ficiency, in analogy to the practice at law in the case of bail. Barnum vs. Saborg, 516. 5. The only question in cases where an appeal bond is. object to, is to ascertain whether the party successful in the inferior court, has, in the sureties in the bond, a secure indemnity for the injury be may sustain by the appeal, and whether this appears, by looking to the worth of each surety, or by an aggregation of the worth of all, is not material. If the sureties in the bond taken collectively are sufficient, the bond is sufficient, and must be approved. Ib. SURPRISE. See TRUSTEES, &c., 9. PRACTICE IN CHANCERY, 35. TENANTS IN POSSESSION. , . 1. It is well established, that this court has the power in a proper case, to |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 602 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