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

MITCHELL VS. MITCHELL. 71
The other ground of defence taken in the answer does not
call in question the right of the complainant to a decree, but
seeks to reduce the amount of his claim by proving a set-off of
fifty dollars, which the respondents say was due Edward Parks
from Thomas Robertson, on account, at the time of the death
of Edward. Perhaps it might be difficult to establish this
claim upon the proof offered in its support, but as I do not
think it could be used as an offset, even if clearly proved, it ia
not material to discuss the evidence. The claim, if there be
one, is a joint claim against Thomas Robertson and Alexan-
der Robertson, the witness, whilst the debts now sought to be
recovered are debts due the former individual only, and as the
rule at law and in equity is the same, that the right of set-off
must be reciprocal, and that mutual claims and such as are in
the same right can alone be set-off, it follows that this claim of
Edward Parks, if the proof shows the existence of such claim,
being against two parties, cannot be set-off against the indivi-
dual claim of one of those parties, for the want of that mutu-
ality which the rule requires. Hall vs. Creswell, 12 G & J.,
36.
My opinion, then, is, that the complainant is entitled to a
decree, which his solicitor may prepare, appointing a trustee to
make sale of the property, and containing a notice to the
creditors of Edward Parks to file their claims in the chancery
office, as is usual in creditors' bills.
J. W. CRISFIELD, for Complainant.
JOHN H. DONE, for the Defendants.
SARAH E. MITCHELL,
vs.
HENRY S. MITCHELL, ADMR.,
D. B. N.OF JAMES D. MITCHELL.
MARCH TERM, 1852.
[CHANCERY PRACTICE.—CHARGE OF DEBT OR LEGACY UPON REAL ESTATE.]
THOUGH an administrator, when called upon to account in Chancery, may
exhibit with his answer and explain not only the accounts passed in 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 71   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