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

48 HIGH COURT Of CHANCERY.
general relief. The defendants to this bill were the Railroad
Company, Grant, Cooper, and his insolvent trustee.
A receiver was accordingly appointed, and on«the 18th of
June, 1849, after answers by all the defendants, the complain-
ants filed an amended bill, the allegations of which, and the
other proceedings in the cause, are sufficiently stated in the '
opinion of the Chancellor.]
THE CHANCELLOR :
This case is submitted to this Court upon the demurrers of
three of the defendants to the amended bill, and the argu-
ments in writing of the solicitors of the parties, in support of,
and in opposition to the demurrers, have been read, the autho-
rities referred to and examined, and the proceedings carefully
considered.
The ground of the demurrer relied upon is multifariousness,
and it is confessedly extremely difficult, if not impracticable, to
lay down any general rule upon the subject; the Courts, in
deciding cases of this description, being governed very much, if
not exclusively, by considerations of convenience, in particular
circumstances, avoiding the attempt of prescribing an inflexible
rule. Story's Eq. PI., Sees. 530, 539. "The conclusion,"
says Mr. Justice Story, " to which a close survey of all the
authorities will conduct us, seems to be, that there is not any
positive inflexible rule as to what, in the sense of a Court of
Equity, constitutes multifariousness, which is fatal to the suit
w demurrer." " All that can be done in each particular case,
as it arises, is to consider whether it comes nearer to the class
of decisions where the objection is held to be fatal, or to the
Other class, where it is held not to be fatal." Section 589.
And I am quite satisfied, that an examination of the nume-
rous cases in which this subject has engaged the attention of
the Courts, will show, that an effort to extract from them any
fixed and immutable principle, as a guide for all subsequent
decisions, will be entirely unsuccessful. The Courts, to be
sure, in deciding upon new cases, as they present themselves,
are not to disregard previous adjudications. They should be

  		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 48   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  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives