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

402 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
upon the report of the Auditor, and seeing no exceptions to
the admissibility of the proof, may well have supposed the
claim would be allowed. The claim, with all the evidence in
support of it, was filed on the 21st of March, 1849. The
report of the Auditor allowing it was filed on the 13th of
February, 1850, and it is not until the 20th of July, 1850, the
day fixed for the hearing, that the admissibility of the proof
is excepted to. Under these circumstances, I think justice
requires that some further time be given to establish this claim.
No. 6 is barred by limitations, and must be rejected so far
as the objecting party is concerned.
The exception to claim No. 1, being the claim of the execu-
tors of Joseph Reynolds, I do not think well taken. The claim
is founded upon a judgment against Thomas Mackall, rendered
at March Term, 1833, and revived by scire facias at March
Term, 1844. The judgment was for the penalty of the bond
sued upon, to be released on the payment of such sum as cer-
tain persons named should say was due; and it is contended,
that because these persons did not ascertain the sum due until
after the death of Mackall, no use can be made of the judg-
ment here. In other words, the objection I presume is, that
the judgment was only interlocutory, and that a final judgment
could not be rendered after the death of the defendant. But
this is an error. The judgment was final, and to make it
absolute no further action of the Court was necessary. The
filing of the certificate of the parties authorized to ascertain
the sum, upon payment of which the judgment was to be
released, was all that was required for the purpose. Turner
vs. Plowden 5 G. & J., 52. The exception to this claim will
therefore be overruled.
[The Chancellor then passed an order, referring the cause
to the Auditor, the terms of which are stated in the following
opinion, delivered upon a further hearing of the case.]
THE CHANCELLOR:
In the order passed by this Court on the 27th of July, 1850,

  		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 402   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