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

DUNN VS. COOPER. 49
consulted and followed, as far as may be safe, having due
regard to considerations of general convenience, and the impor-
tant object of advancing the administration.of justice, by avoid-
ing, on the one hand, the multiplying unnecessary litigation,
and on the other, the involving of suitors in needless and op-
pressive expenses. The difficulty, indeed the impossibility, of
laying down any rule or abstract proposition, as to what con-
stitutes multifariousness, which can be made universally appli-
cable, is conceded on all hands. 1 Daniel's Gh. Pr; 384;
Oliver vs. Piatt, 3 Howard, 333, 411, 412.
The general object of these bills, original and amended, ia
to secure the application of the estate of the defendant, Cooper,
to the payment of his debts, an object which the bill charges
he has endeavored to defeat, by making various fraudulent
transfers and conveyances thereof. The defendants-are all of
them, if the allegations of the bill are true, (and upon the de-
murrer they must be assumed to be true,) more or less impli-
cated in these charges, though the acts and transfers with
which they are respectively connected are separate and dis-
tinct, But, regarding the bill as having the object in view
which has been mentioned, and seeing that the various acts
with which the several defendants are charged are calculated
to defeat that object, the case may possibly come within the
principle decided in Brinkerhoff vs. Brown, 6 John. Ch. Rep.,
139,157, which certainly, in some of its features, ia not unlike
this. Without, however, coming to any positive conclusion.
upon this subject, or expressing an opinion as to what might
have been the fate of these demurrers but for the proceedings
upon this amended bill, which have taken place in Balti-
more County Court, I think that in the actual posture of the
cause, as it is brought before me, it would be altogether wrong
to dismiss it, as might be necessary if the demurrers are sus-
tained; the rule being, that if the bill be liable to be dismissed
for multifariousness, it should be dismissed absolutely and in
toto, and not retained to any extent, and made. the foundation
of partial relief. Gibbs vs. Claggett et al; 2 G. & J., 29;
White et al. vs. White, 5 Gill ,376.

  		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 49   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