| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 569 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
INDEX. 569 EVIDENCE— Continued. 3. Declarations of the lady made in the absence of the intended husband are not admissible to prove the agreement to marry. Gough vs. Crane, 119. 4. Declarations of the lady made in the absence and out of the hearing of the intended husband, to the effect that they had made an agreement, that the husband was to " have all her bonds " and " to allow her the interest on them during her life," are not admissible to bind the husband. Ib. 5. Where a paper is never produced, nor its absence accounted for, its con- tents cannot be proved by parol. Dunnock vs. Dunnock, 140. 6. The grantor in the deed was indebted to a partnership firm, which was in- debted to G., one of the partners. G. purchased the property conveyed by the deed, and it was agreed that the purchase-money should be charged on the books of the firm to G. and credited to the grantor, which was done. HELD— That K., another partner of the firm, was a competent witness for G. in a suit by which the validity of the deed was attacked by the cre- ditors of the grantor, falconer vs. Griffith, 151. 7. Declarations of a grantor made since the execution of a deed, are inadmis- sible to impair the rights of parties claiming under it. Gaitler vs. Gait- ler, 158. 8. Declarations of a deceased attesting witness to a will, respecting the inca- pacity of the testator at the time of its execution, are admissible in evi- dence against the will, where the validity of the will is the question to be I tried. 76. 9. But the declaration of a deceased attesting witness as to the contents and operation of the will are inadmissible; the wild must speak for itself: nor are they admissible to show that a fraud was practised upon the testator in obtaining the will. Ib. 10. Parol evidence is inadmissible to show that the draftsman of the will was mistaken, and the testator designed something not fully expressed. Ib. 11. Official copies of deeds taken from the records, are prima facie evidence of everything necessary to the validity of the instruments. Cole vs. O'Neil, 174. 12. Accounts of a guardian, passed by the Orphans' Court, admitting an in- debtedness to his ward, are prima facie evidence of such indebtedness against the grantees of the guardian claiming under a deed executed by him subsequent to the passage of the accounts. McClellan vs. Kennedy, 234. 13. Accounts settled by an executor or administrator in the Orphans' Court, are prima facie correct, and it is incumbent on him who disputes them to point out and make manifest the error. 0'Hara vs. Shepherd, 306. 14. When a claim is founded upon a lost instrument, evidence of the loss must be first offered, and then a copy, or parol evidence of its contents, may be used: the existence of the original must be first proved before a copy is admissible. Young 4. Wife vs. Mackall, et al.. 398. 15. Where proof is taken, under an order of Court, and the notice was, that depositions would be taken on a certain day at a certain place, and they do not appear upon their face to have been taken at the place designated, they are not admissible in evidence. Ib. 16. It is a settled principle, in this State, that the receipt in a deed is only |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 569 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