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

894 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
lection, can, without the authority of his client, take a bond,
or anything else but money, in satisfaction of the debt; and if
the complainant in this case was under the necessity of main-
taining such a position, he would be without any well-founded
title to the aid of the Court. His case, however, is not placed
upon that footing, but upon the ground that the judgment was
obtained, or is about to be enforced, in violation of an agree-
ment with the attorney of the plaintiffs at law, which, under
the circumstances, he had reason to believe the former was au-
thorized to make, and in regard to which, as I think, his
authority cannot be disputed. The receipt of the attorney for
the assigned claims shows that the proceeds, as collected, were
to be applied in payment of the claims of the defendants against
the complainant; and the correspondence between the defen-
dants and their attorney clearly shows that they were aware of
those assignments, and gave instructions in regard to their col-
lection.
The bill, after setting forth the facts of the assignments and
the institution of the suit against the complainant and his part-
ner, charges, "that it was the distinct understanding and
agreement between him and the said attorney that the suit at
law should not be further prosecuted until there should be found
to be a deficiency to pay off the amount thereof in the sums
assigned." "That the complainant refused to give judgment
in the suit against him, and left town, believing no such judg-
ment would be entered." " That afterwards, and at the said
term, the attorney of the plaintiffs at law agreed with the attor-
ney of the complainant that he would take a judgment, with the
distinct understanding, that if the plaintiff objected thereto it
should be stricken off, and that upon this understanding the
judgment was given." " That as soon as the complainant
knew that the judgment had been rendered, he saw the plain-
tiffs' attorney in relation thereto, and objected to it, and re-
quired that the same should be stricken out, when the attorney
stated that the judgment should make no difference in his
course in the collection of the debts assigned; that his clients
were perfectly satisfied with the assignments, and would wait

  		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 394   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