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

ROBERTSON VS. PARKS. 67
non-residents. After answer by the resident defendants, and
publication of notice against the non-residents, one of the
sisters, who, with her husband, had answered the bill, died,
leaving minor children. The case was revived, and these
minors made parties, and answered by guardian that they
could not admit any of the facts stated in the bill. The
original complainant having died before the hearing of the
cause, the present complainant, his executor, was admitted
to prosecute the suit in his stead. At the hearing of the
cause, the following opinion was delivered by the Chancellor :]
THE CHANCELLOR:
This case, which originated on the equity aide of Somerset
County Court, has been argued by the solicitors of the parties,
and submitted by agreement for the decision of this Court,
upon the pleadings and proofs.
It is a creditor's bill, and it is not disputed that the claims
of the suing creditor, and the inadequacy of the personal
estate of the deceased debtor to pay his debts, are sufficiently
shown by the admissions of the answer of the original defen-
dants, all of whom were adult, and competent to bind them-
selves by such admissions at the time the answer was filed.
The circumstance, that one of the original defendants died
after answering, leaving minor heirs, does not and cannot vary
the effect of the answer, of which the complainant may now avail
himself to the same extent as if no such death had occurred.
In addition to the averment of this indebtedness of Edward
Parks to the complainant, and that said Parks left no personal
estate, the bill alleges that no letters of administration have
been granted thereon, and this averment also is admitted by
the answer, and dispenses, as I think, with the necessity of
producing this proof, which would otherwise be required; and
therefore the complainant would be clearly entitled to a decree
for the Bale of the real. estate, unless some of the grounds of
objection set up in the answer, and relied upon in the argu-
ment, are valid.
The first objection has reference to the frame of the bill, to
which an exception has been filed. The exception is, that the

  		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 67   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