clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 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 3, Page 126   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

126 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
this is your property; and that a portion of the said papers
were in the handwriting of Mr. B. G. Harris." Witness
knew, of his own knowledge, that the notes given by Dr. C.
M. Jones, his father, were in the handwriting of said Harris.
The complainant then, on the 4th of November, 1851, filed
exceptions to this testimony. 1st. To the testimony of Mrs.
Sarah Drury, because it only tends to prove a parol agreement
never executed. 2d. To that of Drs. C. M. Jones and. Broome,
because it details conversations and statements of defendant's
testator out of the presence and hearing of the complainant or
his intestate. 3d. To the testimony of Dr. E. M. Jones, BO
far as it relates to information derived from Mark Ford, be-
cause it is evidence of the declarations of a third party, made
out of the presence of complainant and his intestate. 4th. To
the entire testimony of said Jones, relating to his conversa-
tions with Mrs. Gough before her marriage, because it only
tends to establish a parol agreement unexecuted; and 5th. To
the testimony of said Jones, relating to his conversation with
Mrs. Crane after her marriage, because it is only of declara-
tions made by complainant's intestate after marriage, and not
necessarily tending to prove any ante-nuptial agreement.
The cause came on for hearing at March Term, 1852, and
after the argument was commenced, the defendants filed the
following exception.
" The defendants in this case except and object to the juris-
diction of the Court in this case to grant any relief to the
complainant by his bill filed in this case, because he hath com-
plete remedy at law for all the rights he sets up in the bill."
On the 23d of March, 1852, the Chancellor passed a decree,
directing the defendants to deliver up the bonds in controversy
to the complainant; accompanying which he delivered the fol-
lowing opinion:]
THE CHANCELLOR:
Putting aside the ante-nuptial agreement set up by the
answer, it is perfectly clear that the securities which form the

  		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 3, Page 126   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


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 mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives