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

230 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
stances thus stated is, whether this party, the owner of claim
No. 50, has been guilty of that kind of laches which, according
to the practice of the Court, or upon equitable principles or
considerations of convenience and expediency, debars him of
the right to have his claim examined and decided upon its
merits.
By the order of the 29th of October last, dismissing the
petition filed on the 25th of that month, an opinion and judg-
ment adverse to the petitioner was pronounced, but this was
Without argument on his part, and without that careful exami-
nation and consideration of all the circumstances attending
this case, which I have since bestowed upon it. The order of
the 31st of January last, ratifying the report of the Auditor of
the 20th of October, 1851, having been rescinded, no Judgment
of the Court distributing the funds stands in the way, and the
question now presented is precisely that which is spoken of in
Dixon vs. Dixon, 1 Maryland Ch. Decisions, 271, that is, the
creditor asks to be permitted to come in, with new proof of his
claim, in the interval between the final report of the Auditor, made
under the directions of the Court, and its ratification, within
which period, though it is not matter of course to let the party in
to offer further proof in support of his claim, he will be allowed
to do BO, under circumstances which would not entitle him to
the privilege after the report has been ratified. The case of
Kent vs. O'Hara, 7 G. & J., 212, the decision of which I sup-
posed at one time was conclusive against the present applica-
tion, is not precisely like this. There the final report of the
Auditor had been ratified by the Chancellor, and the application
was to rescind the order of ratification, and permit the party
10 offer further proof of his claim. The application was re-
fused in that case, though the Court there say; "That cases
may sometimes occur, in which the rule not to open the account
after final ratification, on the application of one whose claim
had been first suspended and ultimately rejected, for want of
proof to sustain it, might appear to operate harshly, and there
may be cases in which it would and ought to be relaxed."
It is not necessary to decide here whether the general rule,

  		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 220   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