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

228 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY..
Meekins, on the 18th of July, 1851, is to open and rescind the
order of the 23d of April, 1850, confirming the Auditor's report
of the 18th of the preceding month of March, which report
was filed on the 23d of the same month. The report so con-
firmed had distributed the residue of the proceeds of the sales,
after paying costs and commissions and the preferred claim of
the complainant, among the creditors of John Beard, giving a
small dividend to each; and the petition prays that this order
may be rescinded, and the residue applied to the payment of
the claim of the petitioner, in exclusion of the other creditors,
upon the ground that the petitioner is a judgment creditor, and
entitled as such to a preference.
The decree which was passed on the 2d of July, 1849,
directed the trustee to give notice to creditors to come in by a
time limited with the vouchers of their claims, and all the usual
necessary steps having been taken, the Auditor appropriated
the proceeds of the sales among the parties apparently entitled,
and his report making the appropriation was duly ratified and
confirmed on the 28d of April, 1850, and the trustee directed
to apply the proceeds accordingly. This order remained un-
challenged for nearly fifteen months, and then, for the first
time, the Court is called upon by petition to open and cancel
it, and give a different direction to the money.
Whatever may be the true extent of the powers of this
Court over money raised by its decrees, my impression is, that
under the circumstances of this case, the order in question
should not be rescinded. That order has all the force and
qualities of a decree; and although it may be competent upon
petition to vacate the enrolment of a decree alleged to have
been obtained by surprise, as may be inferred from the case
of Oliver vs. Palmer and Hamilton, 11 G. & J., 137; it is
very clear that the general law of the Court is the other way,
and that after a decree has been enrolled, it cannot bo reheard
upon petition, and that the remedy is by bill of review, Burch
vs. Scott, 1 G. & J., 393. Several terms had intervened
between the passage of this order, and the filing of the petition
which seeks to vacate it. It is an application, then, (by peti-

  		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 228   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