| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 432 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
432 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. affirming the principle, that it is competent to this Court, after an account has been stated by the Auditor, in pursuance of directions, to review and reverse the decision and to dismiss the bill on more mature consideration, justified a re-examina- tion of every point settled by the order of November, 1848, and accordingly, almost every question has been re-argued. But, inasmuch as the Court of Appeals has expressed its dis- tinct approbation of that order, this Court, should it now proceed to a reconsideration and reversal of it, would not be simply reconsidering and reversing its own judgment, but that of the Court of Appeals, a liberty which it is supposed this Court can hardly be warranted in taking. I therefore con- clude, that no question, adjudicated by the order referred to, is open for examination, except those in regard to which addi- tional evidence has been introduced. And with these remarks, I proceed, as briefly as possible, but after a very careful examination of all the proceedings and evidence in the cause, had or brought in subsequently to the order of November, 1848, to express my opinion upon the questions, which, in my judgment, now remain to be decided; and, in doing this, I shall first take up the grounds of sur- charge and falsification stated in the bill, and then those specified in the amended answer. The first error alleged in the bill, in the account J. J., is the charge of $150 cash, advanced to the complainant, to pay his travelling expenses to Boston. This was alleged to be too much by fifty dollars, but it is now admitted that the charge is correct, and it must stand. The second error has relation to the Railroad account. I have already expressed the opinion, that the complainant is entitled to be credited with the whole of whatever sum may be regarded as a proper compensation for the use of the Savage Railroad, and, as ten per cent. was the rate of compensation allowed in the account No. 2, stated by 0. D. Williams, that rate was allowed on the whole cost of the road. The decision, that complainant is to be regarded as the sole proprietor of the road, and entitled to be credited with whatever may be |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 432 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.
Maryland State Archives