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

KENT VS. RICARDS. 397
of this Court, where alone he can now have redress. This case
seems to me to fall directly within the principle so often de-
cided by the Courts, that a Court of Equity will relieve a party
against a judgment at law, when its justice can be impeached
by facts, or on grounds of which the party seeking the aid of
Chancery could not have availed himself at law, or was pre-
vented from doing it by fraud or accident, or the act of the
opposite party, unmixed with any negligence or fraud on his
own part. Gott & Wilson vs. Carr, 6 G. & J., 309. Cer-
tainly in this case, if the averments of the bill are true, the
complainant was prevented from making his defence at law by
the act of the attorney of the opposite party, and no such negli-
gence can be imputed to him as will deprive him of the title
to come here for relief.
The answer to this bill does not profess to deny the aver-
ments in which the equity consists. After admitting that the
attorney of the respondent did receive from the complainant
sundry causes of action for collection, the answer proceeds to
say, " but this respondent does not believe, and cannot admit,
that the said attorney made any such arrangement or contract
in relation thereto as is set forth in the said bill." That such
an answer is not sufficient to dissolve an injunction is conclu-
sively shown by the case of Doub vs. Barnes et al; 4 Gill, 1.
I am therefore of opinion, the Injunction must be continued,
and shall so order. But in coming to this conclusion, I do not
mean to be understood as intimating any opinion with regard
to the question so much controverted, whether the assignments
were to be collected at the risk of the complainant or the de-
fendant. I leave that question for further consideration, when
the cause comes up to be heard upon the merits.
A. RANDALL, for Complainant.
A. B. HAGNER, for Defendant.

  		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 397   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