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

DUCKER VS. BELT. 19
There is, moreover, another very formidable if not insuperable
objection to granting the relief prayed by this petition. It
prays not only that the order of the 10th of October last may
be rescinded, but all other orders passed since the death of
Belt, including, of course, the order of the 26th of July last.
The object, then, is to get rid of the order of the 26th of July,
1849, ratifying and confirming the report of the Auditor, and
directing the proceeds of sale to be applied accordingly. And
in truth, unless the petitioner can procure a revocation of that
order, his purpose cannot be accomplished. But can this court
now revoke that order upon the petition filed on the 5th of
November last ? The July term had then expired, and the de-
cree of the 26th of that month must be regarded as enrolled,
and no longer to be reheard upon petition. Berch et al. vs.
Scott, 1 Gill & Johns., 393. In that case the Court of Ap-
peals say, "if a decree be obtained and enrolled, BO that the
cause cannot be reheard upon petition, there is no remedy but
by a bill of review, which must be upon error appearing upon
the face of the decree, or upon some new matter discovered
since." It does not appear to me to be a sufficient answer to
this objection, to say that the petition of the 10th of Septem-
ber last, was filed before the preceding July term had closed,
because that petition was dismissed and finally disposed of by
the order of the 10th of the following October. The petition,
therefore, filed on the 5th of November, 1849, can derive no
aid from that filed on the 10th of the preceding September,
and we must deal with the laet petition now, irrespective of that
which was filed previously, and if this be so, the error, if one
was committed, in the passage of the order of the 26th of July
last, cannot be corrected by this form of proceeding. It ap-
pears by the report of the Auditor in this cause, that after+
satisfying the several claims filed and allowed, there remained
a residue of $319 95, which was assigned to the mortgagor,
Belt, and nothing in this opinion, or in the order about to be
passed, is to be understood as deciding that the petitioner, King,
may not, by a proper proceeding, claim and recover that bal-
ance. The opinion and order of the court has reference ex-

  		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 19   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  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives