Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 311 View pdf image (33K) |
O'HARA VS. SHEPHERD. 3H be either in aid of the decree, that it may be carried into full execution, or that proper directions may be given upon some matter omitted in the original bill, or not put in issue by it, or by the defence made to it; Story's Eq. PI., sec. 338. Now I do not regard the supplemental bill in this case as mak- ing a new case, or as seeking to vary the principle of the decree of the 10th of October, 1845. That decree directed the then guardian of the infant, and the defendant Shepherd to account of and concerning the several matters and things as set forth in the pleadings in the cause. The bill now under considera- tion does not seek to vary the principle of that decree, nor does it make a new case. It supplies new elements for the account, by introducing matters omitted in the original bill, and not put in issue by it or by the defence made to it; but the principle of the decree, notwithstanding the introduction of the new matter, stands, and the parties are still to account of and concerning the matters in the pleadings mentioned, and these matters in the original and supplemental bill all have reference to the same estate. The supplemental bill, it is true, in addition to the relief prayed by the original bill, and to the prayer for an account of and concerning the new matter, prays for a sale of certain property, and for a receiver. But the question now under con- sideration is not, whether upon this bill and in this cause, this kind of relief may be granted after the decree for an account. 'The question under examination is, whether a new case is made by this supplemental bill, so that any relief which may be granted upon it, will vary the principle of the decree of October, 1845. If such is the character of the bill, it should not have been filed in this cause without the leave of the Court, because in that case it must be regarded as a supple- mental bill in the nature of a bill of review, which requires such leave. But as the Court may, upon the statements made in this bill, grant relief entirely in accordance with the decree already passed, or in other words, as the additional matters introduced merely supply new elements for the account, I can see no reason why the bill should be rejected. And it may also be observed, that though the defendant Shepherd, in his |
||||
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 311 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.