| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 47 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
DUNN VS. COOPER. 4T nience, in particular circumstances, avoiding die attempt to prescribe an inflexible rule. In deciding upon new cases as they arise, the Courts are not to disregard previous decisions; they should be consulted and followed, as far as may be safe, having due regard to considerations of general convenience, and the advancement of justice, by avoiding, on the one hand, unnecessary litigation, and on the other, needless and oppressive expenses. If a bill be liable to be dismissed for multifariousness, the rule is, that it must be dismissed absolutely and in toto, and not retained to any extent, and made the foundation of partial relief. A bill was filed by creditors attacking certain alleged fraudulent convey- ances, and a receiver appointed; there was afterwards an amended bill, attacking other conveyances of the same grantor, and asking that the re- ceiver might be ordered to sell certain property alleged to be in danger of loss; and, upon due notice served upon defendants, an order passed ac- cordingly, and a large amount of property sold by the receiver. Two of the defendants to the original, and one to the amended bill, then came in, and demurred to the latter bill, on the ground of multifariousness. HELD— That, under the special circumstances of this case, it would be moat inconve- nient to allow this demurrer to prevail, and that it should, therefore, be overruled. [The original bill in this case was filed, on the equity side of Baltimore County Court, on the 25th of April, 1849, by Edward Dunn and others, creditors of one Erwin Cooper; and after stating said Cooper's indebtedness to them, charges that, on the 3d of April, 1849, said Cooper, then being in a hopeless state of insolvency, executed a mortgage to the Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad Company, of certain leasehold and per- sonal estate, which mortgage is alleged to have been made with knowledge on the part of the mortgagee of the grantor's insol- vency at the time of its execution, and to be fraudulent and void as against his then existing creditors. It also charges that said Cooper, on the 6th of April, 1849, executed to one Joseph P. Grant a deed of trust of all his estate, real and per- sonal, which the bill then proceeds to assail as fraudulent as against creditors. The bill also further states, that Cooper ap- plied for the benefit of the insolvent laws on the 18th of April, 1849; that on the 1st of April, 1849, he had a large amount of property liable to decay and deterioration, and the prayer is for a receiver to take charge of the same, for an account and |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 47 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