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

90 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
stipulation is, that no interest shall be allowed or paid by or
to either party from the date of the contract. But the sum of
$7,705 70 was to be paid to the complainant after the date of
the contract. The money had not then been collected. It
was to be paid from time to time as assets should be received,
and when the parties agreed that no interest should be allowed
or paid by or to either party from the date of the contract,
it is very difficult to put a construction upon the terms which
shall prevent their applying to such payments. The argument
that it is unreasonable and inequitable not to allow the com-
plainant interest on the sums paid by him after the date of the
contract, when the defendant was in the actual enjoyment of
his proportion of the profits, would be unanswerable, hut for
the explicit terms in which the parties have couched their
agreement. That agreement, however, must control their
rights, there being nothing indicating imposition, concealment,
or any other circumstance, which can, in any sense or to any
extent, impair its validity.
But, although the plaintiff is not, in my judgment, entitled
to interest from the date of the contract, I think he should have
interest from the period of the filing of his bill, that is, from
the 8th of January, 1830, and I shall so decree; each party
paying his own costs. Costa are not given, because it appears
from a letter of defendant to the plaintiff, dated 27th of July,
1848, that the former proposed to settle with the plaintiff pre-
cisely upon the terms now established, which proposal was de-
clined. It may also be observed that that letter shows that
the defendant then thought himself liable to the plaintiff to the
extent now decreed against him.
WILLIAM SCHLEY, for Complainants.
THOMAS DONALDSON, for Defendant.

  		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 90   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  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives