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

476 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
done the attorney who had instituted the .suits and obtained
the judgments, and this, I think, will be accomplished by
dividing the usual commission of five per centum equally
between him. and the attorney by whom the money may be
collected, and an order will be passed accordingly; the said
commissions to be paid out of the interest upon the proceeds
of the sale of the personal estate already received or to be
received.
In addition to the above question, exceptions to the Audi-
tor's report have been submitted, in pursuance of a previous
order, and upon these, the counsel of some of the parties inte-
rested have been heard.
The Auditor, in his report of the 2d of July, 1851, after
enumerating certain claims not objected to, and others, in
regard to which the objections have been removed, says, "All
the other claims reported as having been objected to by the
Auditor or the parties, are still subject to such objections."
Claims numbered 19 and 20 appear to be proved, but are
subject to the plea of limitations, which plea, however, can
only enure to the benefit of the party pleading it.
Since the report of the Auditor of the 2d of July, 1851,
further proof has been taken in support of several of the
claims, but upon many of these, it does not appear that the
Auditor has yet reported, and I deem it better to submit the
new proof to him for examination, before expressing an opinion
upon its effect; with regard, however, to a few of the claims to
which my attention has been particularly directed, and in
reference to which the proof is supposed to be full, I purpose
to express an opinion.
In my opinion, claims numbered 48, 49, and 51 are fully
proved, and the defence of limitations relied upon by Smith
and wife, is overthrown by the testimony of A. Anderson, filed
on the 81st of December, 1850.
The claim No. 91, I think, is proved, though it appears to
be subject to the plea of limitations, which has been relied
Upon by some of the parties. The same remarks apply to

  		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 476   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