| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 595 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
INDEX 595 PRACTICE IN CHANCERY.— Continued. not avail him if he as plaintiff were asking the aid of the Court. Gough v. Crime, 119. 23. Chancery, when called upon to coerce the specific performfance of con- tracts, acts with less restraint than when exercising its ordinary jurisdic- tion, and will not interfere unless satisfied that the application is fair just, and reasonable in all respects. Ib. 24. Where the representatives of, the wife are asking a Court of Equity to direct the representatives of the husband to deliver over- to them the chases in action of the wife, not reduced into possession by the husband in his lifetime, and the defence taken is part performance of a parol ante- nuptial agreement, the defendants should be held to the game clear, de- finite, and unequivocal proof of the contract set up in the answer, as if they were plaintiffs asking far its specific performance. Ib. 25. In this State a Court of Equity will receive parol proof to reform a written contract, so as to make it correspond with the real intention of (he par- ties, and then decree its specific execution. 111. 26. But where the contract is by parol, no matter if the intention of the parties was ever so clearly expressed, it would still be void for want of writing, and no reformation of it by a Court of Equity can make it otherwise. 11. 27. Under the prayer for general relief, the plaintiff may nave any relief con- sistent with the specific relief prayed, which may be warranted by the allegations of the bill. Dunnock vs. Dunnock, 140. 28. Where the whole object of the bill and the special relief prayed for is a separate maintenance or alimony to the wife, so long as the separation between her and her husband may continue, it may well be doubted if a divorce, a mensa et them, could be granted under the prayer for 'general relief. Hi. , 29. According to the practice in this State, an objection for the want of juris- diction may be taken at the hearing, though not presented either by plea, answer, or demurrer. A. 30. The fact that the complainant had previously filed her bill in the equity side of the County Court for a divorce and alimony, is an insuperable objec- tion to the Court of Chancery granting her relief upon ber bill there for alimony. Ib. 31. Where two Courts hive concurrent jurisdiction over the same subject- matter, the Court in which the suit is first commenced is entitled to retain it: the other has no authority to interfere, and will as soon as judicially informed of the pendency of the prior suit, dismiss the subsequent pro- ceedings. Ib.. 33. Where a portion of the property in dispute was equitable, and the plain- tiff's title could oot therefore be asserted in a Court of law, and the number of tenants great, and endless litigation might, and probably would, ensue at law, the jurisdiction of equity may be maintained. Cole vs. 0'Neil. 174. 33. In a case where the plaintiff shows equitable title to a part of the property in dispute, and a legal and equitable title to the rest, it being decided that the defendant has no title, legal or equitable, and where preservation of the property requires it, a receiver will be appointed. Ib. 34. Where a creditor seeks to offer new proof of his claim in the interval be- |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 595 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