| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 299 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF RACHEL COLVIN. 299 Court relinquishes the possession of the property, they will be prompt in applying to some Court competent to protect it from injury. The order of the 9th of February, moreover, was passed ex parte, and necessarily so, because of the perils to which this large estate would have been exposed by the delay of giving notice to the parties in interest. But these parties are now here, some claiming to be heirs-at-law, and others devisees un- der a paper purporting to be the will of the deceased, and insisting that the receiver appointed by the order in question shall be removed, and others appointed in his place. It is also a circumstance not unworthy of consideration, that the constitutional existence of this Court is limited to a period now rapidly approaching, and in all human probability, that pe- riod will have arrived and passed long before the controversy in regard to the will can be brought to a close. It is certainly far better that this valuable estate should be under the care and control of a permanent Court than of one which must cease to exist in a short time. As by the appointment of a receiver no question of right was decided, so by his discharge none will be touched; but the receiver, and those of the parties who de- sire him to fill that office, will be at liberty to go before the proper tribunal and ask for his appointment. No harm is done to any one by requiring him to settle his accounts, and to hand the property over to those who may be entitled to its posses- sion. An order will be passed in conformity with these views. [The Chancellor accordingly, on the 19th of April, 1853, passed an order discharging the receiver, and directing him to account, as stated in the above opinion. From this order the receiver entered an appeal, and filed an appeal bond. A mo- tion was then made by the administrator pendente life, for an attachment to compel the receiver to comply with the order of the 19th of April. Upon the hearing of this motion, the Chancellor delivered the following opinion, on the 17th of May,1853.] |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 299 View pdf image (33K) |
|
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.
Maryland State Archives