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

BOWIC VS. BOWIC. 51
So far, therefore, as Cooper and Grant are concerned, it
would seem to be out of the question to sustain the demurrer.
Independently of the proceedings which have taken place in
the County Court upon the amended bill, it cannot, in my
opinion, be regarded as multifarious, so far as Cooper and
Grant are concerned; but in view of those proceedings, adopted
in part in consequence of their neglect to oppose them at the
proper time, it would seem impossible now to say they can,
upon demurrer, get rid of the bill. And with regard to the
defendant Powers, I am fully persuaded it is better to retain
the bill, and suffer the cause to be tried upon its merits, than
to dismiss it. If it is dismissed, as we have seen, it must be
dismissed absolutely and as against all the parties, no part of
it can be retained, or partial relief afforded under i^, and hence
the embarrassment and confusion which would result from the
order of Baltimore County Court passed upon it, and the sale
in virtue of that order.
In reference to these cases, the Courts have considered what
was convenient, in particular circumstances, rather than in con-
formity with any absolute rule, and it appears to me that under
the special circumstances of this case, it would be most incon-
venient, not to say injurious, to allow these demurrers to pre-
vail; and they will, therefore, be overruled.
E. G. KILBOURN, for Complainants.
COLBMAN YELLOTT, and JOHN NELSON, for Defendants.
SARAH H. BOWIC
vs. JULY TERM, 1860.
PETER A. BOWIC ET AL.
[DIVORCE A MENSA—CRUELTY OF TREATMENT—CONDONATION.]
MERE petulance and rudeness, and sallies of passion, are not sufficient to
constitute " cruelty of treatment," within the meaning of the Act of 1841,
ch. 262; there must be a series of acts of personal violence, or danger
Of life, limb, or health, to authorize ft divorce a menSa.

  		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 51   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