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

WILLIAMS VS. THE SAVAGE MANUFACTURING CO. 443
papers, &c., unless it appears, that those travelling expenses
were incurred on account of the Bank. In the Exhibit A A,
No. 6, several sums appear to have been paid away by the
complainant, on account of the Railroad, and with these, I
think he is chargeable, as, for the purposes of this case, the
complainant and the Railroad are one. For the reasons, how-
ever, already stated, I do not think the complainant should
be charged with interest on those sums. The defendant has
abandoned the claim on account of complainant's house, and
I do not think the claim for house-rent can be maintained.
In regard to this matter of rent, no want of authority can be
urged, nor was a formal order of the corporation necessary,
and the claim is now for the first time presented, though as
far back as December, 1835, the complainant made the entry
in his day-book, which is relied upon as furnishing grounds
for the claim. After this long acquiescence, it seems to me
too late to make the charge.
23d. Under this division of the amended answer, the attempt
is renewed to charge the complainant with the sums expended
in erecting the furnace and its appendages, and the charge has
been pressed in the argument with much earnestness and force.
As the case was presented by the record, upon the former
hearing, it was not only the judgment of this Court, but that
of the Court of Appeals also, that the complainant was not so
chargeable, and, therefore, in the absence of new proof, it can-
not, according to the views already expressed, be regarded as
an open question. But an additional deposition has been
taken, that of Mr. Henry H. Williams, and this deposition, it
is supposed, in connexion with the proof formerly in this cause,
is sufficient to induce the Court to change the judgment here-
tofore expressed. I do not, however, think so. Much of the
same description of evidence was before the Court when the
order of November, 1848, was passed. No doubt was then
entertained, or is now entertained, of the veracity of the wit-
nesses who deposed upon this subject, or of the truth of the
facts to which they respectively deposed. The evidence now
derived from Mr. Williams can, then, only be regarded as

 
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 443   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