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

300 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
THE CHANCELLOR:
This is an application to enforce, by attachment, the order
of the 19th April last, by which Benjamin H. Ellicott was re-
moved from the office of receiver, to which he was appointed
under a previous order of this Court, and directed to account
and deliver to Richard 0. Warford, administrator pendente lite
of the deceased, the personal estate and effects in his hands;
and the only questions which properly arise upon this applica-
tion, are two. First, can the receiver appeal from the order ?
and secondly, if he cannot, will this Court, notwithstanding
he has entered and filed an approved appeal bond, proceed to
enforce its execution ? In addition to these, however, the
counsel have argued a third, and that is, whether an appeal
will lie from the order in question, in behalf of any of the par-
ties in interest ? and upon each of these I propose very briefly
to express an opinion.
It is conceded, that if the -right of appeal exists, it is not in
virtue of any statutory enactment expressly giving it. If it
exists at all, the right is founded either upon general principles
regulating the subject of appeals, or is derived, by implication,
from some one of the various Acts of Assembly which have been
passed from time to time, or is to be drawn from the general
scope and spirit embodied in them as a whole.
The general rule undoubtedly is, that an appeal will not lie
from a mere practical order of this Court, preparatory to the
final hearing, and by which the rights of the parties are not
affected. Such was announced to be the law in the case of
Thompson vs. M'Kim, 6 H. & J., 312, and is asserted in
every subsequent case in which the subject has been spoken of
in the Court of Appeals.
Now it cannot be said that an order appointing a receiver,
or discharging him, has, or can have, any influence upon the
rights of the parties. The late Chancellor, in 1 Bland, 421,
laid down the rule upon the subject in the clearest terms, and
the Court of Appeals, in Ellicott vs. The United States Ins. Co.,
7 Gill. 307, repeat and adopt his language.
It is true, that by the proviso to the 1st section of the Act

  		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 300   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  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives