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

COLE VS. O'NEILL. 177
after have, and without being liable for his debts, and with
power to her to sell and dispose of the same."
The answer of Daniel O'Neill denies all knowledge of the
execution of the deed from Catharine Drake to the Complainant,
and avers that he never heard of it until after her death. It
avers that two months prior to the date of the said deed, the
said Catharine and defendant became engaged to be married
to each other, and that pursuant to the said engagement, on
the 14th May, 1843, they were married, and that they lived
together as man and wife, thenceforth until the death of the
said Catharine, which took place on the 28th August, 1850.
It insists that said deed, if executed at all, was so executed in
fraud of the marital rights of defendant, and is therefore void,
and defendant therefore claims to be entitled to all the lease-
hold, settled in trust for his said wife as before stated, and to
the rents and profits thereof.
The answers of the defendants, Lechler and Fleming, like-
wise deny all knowledge of the execution of the deed from
Catharine Drake to complainant, and insist it was made, if
made at all, in fraud of the marital rights of O'Neill, and ia
therefore void.
An injunction was granted on the filing of the bill. After
coming in of the answers, the defendants moved for a dissolu-
tion of the injunction, and the complainant moved for the
appointment of a receiver. The motions were heard together.
The Chancellor passed an order, continuing the injunction until
final hearing, and on the 28th July, another order was passed,
appointing a receiver as prayed. Accompanying the first
order, he delivered the following opinion.]
THE CHANCELLOR:
This case has been brought before the Court at this term;
and has been argued upon motions to dissolve the injunction
which was granted when the bill was filed, and for the appoint-
ment of a receiver, which was also asked for in the. bill but
held over for the coming in of the answer, or until further
order.

  		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 177   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  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives