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

256 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
property which originally belonged to her should be responsi-
ble for the debts of Mitchell.
But the complainants have filed, under the commission, the
transcript of the record of a suit instituted in this Court in the
year 1888, by the present complainants, against Richard Ben-
net Mitchell alone, in which that release was impeached, an4,
by the decree of the Chancellor, set aside, in the year 1840.
The admissibility of this record is excepted to upon several
grounds, and amongst others, upon the ground that the ex-
cepting defendants were not parties to the cause in which the
decree was pronounced, and I have no doubt the exception is
well taken. It seems to me it would be a most pernicious
doctrine to establish that the decree passed in that cause, to
which Mrs. Bedford and the other excepting defendants were
not parties, should be received in evidence against them. If
that bill was filed for the purpose of removing this release out
of the way, and subjecting by such removal the property of
Mrs. Bedford, to the claim of the complainants against Mit-
chell, then it was essentially necessary that she and the other
parties whose interests are associated with hers, should have
been made parties. The decree otherwise would have been
fraudulent and void as to them, and of course can have no
operation whatever as against them. Story's Eq. PI; sec.
427.
Upon the whole, then, and without expressing any opinion
as to the effect of the plea of the act of limitations, I am pre-
pared to sign a decree dismissing the bill so far as it proposes
to affect the property which originally belonged to Henrietta
A. Bedford, and which became vested, by the conveyances
mentioned in the proceedings, in Kennedy and Glenn. Diffe-
rent considerations may apply to such property (if there be
any) as belonged to Richard Bennet Mitchell not derived from
the said Henrietta A. Bedford, and as to such property no
opinion is now expressed.
NELSON, for Complainants.
WALLIS for Defendants.

  		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 256   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