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 150   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

150 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
was filed, a Court of competent jurisdiction had possesaion of
this subject of alimony. It is true Samuel Dunnock, the
grantee in the bill of sale, was not a party to the bill filed in
Dorchester County Court, but he might by an amended or
supplemental bill have been made a party, and the question
now raised between him and the complainant have been litigated
in that Court. The question of the right of the complainant
to alimony was distinctly presented by her bill in the County
Court, and constitutes a part of the relief specifically prayed
for, and it is undoubtedly competent to that Court to say
whether she is entitled to that relief or not.
Suppose this Court, upon the bill which she has exhibited
here, was to decree her alimony, or an allowance out of these
negroes, or the fruits of their labor, and the County Court
should, upon the bill depending there, decide that she has no
such claim, there would be a clear conflict between the two
Courts. To avoid this danger the rule is well established,
that when two Courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the
same subject-matter, the Court in which the suit is first com-
menced is entitled to retain it, and the other co-ordinate Court
has no authority to interfere, and will, as soon as judicially
informed of the pendency of the prior suit, dismiss the subse-
quent proceedings.
The bill in the case of Brooks vs. Delaplane, 1 Maryland
Chancery Decisions, 351, was dismissed in accordance with
this principle, which in another case, subsequently decided,
received the full sanction of the Court of Appeals. See case
of Albert and Wife vs. Winn & Ross et al., 7 Gill, 446.
Being of opinion, for these reasons, that the complainant can-
Dot have relief here, I must dissolve the injunction, the case not
having matured or been submitted for final decree.
JAMES A. STEWART, and E. GBISWOLD for Complainant.
E. B. HOOPER, and J. A. SPENCE, for Defendants.
[An appeal was taken from the order dissolving the injunc-
tion, passed in conformity to the above opinion, which is still
pending.]

  		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 150   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  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives