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

WILLIAMS VS. THE SAVAGE MANUFACTURING CO. 431
It is, therefore, ordered that the application be overruled,
and that the petition of the complainant, filed on the 29th day
of January, 1852, be, and the same is hereby dismissed, with
costs to be taxed by the Register.
["Further proceedings were then had in the cause, and ac-
counts were stated by the Auditor, to which exceptions were
filed; at the hearing of which, the Chancellor, on the 22d of
October, 1852, delivered the following opinion, wherein the
nature of the exceptions and the facts of the case are fully
stated.]
THE CHANCELLOR :
In the opinion of this Court, delivered on the 22d of Novem-
ber, 1848, and by the order of that date, several of the errors
specified in the bill, and constituting the grounds of surcharge
and falsification relied upon by the complainant, were adjudi-
cated in his favor; and the opinion and judgment of this Court
with respect to these errors, having been approved by the
Court of Appeals, they must be regarded as settled, unless the
proof taken since that order, should be considered sufficiently
strong to warrant different conclusions.
The language of the Court of Appeals, in their order passed
at December Term, 1850, is, that they " concur in the opinion
and decision of the Chancellor;" but as his decision re-
stricted the right to surcharge and falsify the account to the
complainant alone, they modified his opinion so as to make
the right to surcharge and falsify reciprocal, as essential to
the substantial merits of the case, and leave was given to
amend the proceedings accordingly.
The defendant has availed himself of this privilege, and
much additional proof has been taken, bearing more or less
upon some of the questions formerly decided, leaving others of
them to rest upon the record, as it stood at the time that deci-
sion was made.
It was supposed, by the defendant's counsel, that the case of
Snowden vs. Dorsey, 6 H. & J., 114, and the numerous cases

  		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 431   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  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives