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

McCLELLAN VS. KENNEDY; 239
that effect was passed, and John Hillen was appointed guardian
in his place. That from the time of filing the above bill in
Chancery, and their becoming acquainted with all the circum-
stances of the case, they never had a doubt but that Mitchell
had improperly, and by exercise of undue influence over the
said Henrietta, and under a misconception on her part of her
relations and duties to him, obtained the deeds of March,
1825, and that the same would be set aside and annulled; and
being under this impression, they lent their aid to obtain an
arrangement between the parties, by which further litigation,
and its unpleasant disclosures of facts to the public, relating to
the unfortunate and disastrous incident of the marriage might
be prevented, and the intereata of the said Henrietta be pro-
tected aa fully as by a decree. These considerations led to a
settlement, by which the proceedings in Chancery were aban-
doned, and they (Kennedy and Glenn), together with said
Mitchell, executed a deed to the said Henrietta, on the 2d of
August, 1827, reconveying to her, as stated in the bill, all the
property they had derived from Mitchell. That indemnity
was given to them by said Henrietta and John Hillen, as part
of said arrangement, said indemnity being intended to protect
them against any possible demand that persons conceiving
themselves to have a claim might make. They admit they
executed the deed of the 25th of October, 1832, as stated in
the bill. They admit that it is true, that said Elizabeth A.
Mitch&ll executed the release, as stated in the bill, on the 17th
of November, 1827, immediately after she came of age, and
was no more, as they understood, than a compliance with her
previously often-expressed purpose.
And these defendants further state (a fact which seems care-
fully excluded from the bill) that the complainant Maria also,
upon her coming of age, and upon the rendition of her father's
final account as her guardian, in like manner executed a full
and complete release of all demands against him, declaring
herself satisfied and paid all that, by the account rendered, ap-
peared to be due by her said guardian to her; said release being
executed on the 12th of March, 1834, a copy of which, toge-

  		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 239   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