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

WILLIAMS VS. THE SAVAGE MANUFACTURING CO. 455
son, the Court, though, refusing to set it aside absolutely as
fraudulent in fact, ordered it to stand as security for the sum
really due from the father to the son.
The opinion of Chancellor Kent in that case is not only
supported by the authorities cited by him, but meets full con-
firmation in the case of Wood vs. Abrey, 3 Madd., 216, where
a deed made for an inadequate consideration by vendors who
were in great distress, and without professional assistance, was
set aside upon the plaintiff's repaying the amount of the pur-
chase-money, and by what was said by the Master of the Rolls
in Daubeny vs. Cockburn, 1 Merivale, 643, " that in ordinary
cases of fraud the whole transaction is undone, but if a partially
.valuable consideration is given, its return is secured as the
condition on which equity relieves."
I am of opinion, therefore, that under the circumstances of
this case, the complainant has an equity to have his stock
returned to him, upon his paying to the Savage Manufacturing
Company the amount of his indebtedness to it, as ascertained
by the last report of the Auditor. "
The counsel, therefore, may prepare a decree ratifying and
confirming the Report of the 12th of November last, and di-
recting the defendant to issue to. the complainant, of the capital
stock of the said Manufacturing Company an interest repre-
senting the sum of $9,632 32, provided the said complainant
shall, by a certain day to be limited by and named in the
decree, pay or tender to the defendant the sum ascertained
by the said report to be due from the said complaisant to the
defendant. And in that case neither party shall recover coats
against the other. And by the decree power must be reserved
to the Court to pass such further order or decree as may be
necessary, in case the complainant shall make default in paying
or tendering to the defendant the amount ascertained as afore-
said to be due to the defendant by the said Report.
ALEXANDER, for Complainant.
WILLIAM SCHLEY, and GEORGE H. WILLIAMS, for Defen-
dant.

  		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 455   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