| Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 119 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
TOLSON VS. TOLSON. 119 [From the order dismissing the petition of the trustee, Mayo, the latter appealed to the Court of Appeals. la that court the cause was argued before Le Grand, C. J., Eccleston, and Mason, 3; by Randall & Hagner, for the appellant, and by McLean, for the appellee. The following is the opinion of that court, delivered by his honor Chief Justice Le. Grand.] "We entirely concur with the Chancellor, both in his reason- ing and the order which he passed in this case. It was mani- festly the intention of the father of the appellee to provide him "an ample and independent support during his natural life," and there is not the slightest evidence furnished by the record to justify the action of the Court of Chancery as asked for by the appellant. There is nothing to sustain the allegation that the appellee has squandered, or is likely to misapply, his in- come, nor is there any proof to show his mental condition to be different from what it was when his father, by his will, so care- fully assured to him "an ample and independent support." We regard the petition as wholly unsustained. Order affirmed." JOHN TOLSON, vs. JULY TERM, 1853. HENRY TOLSON ET AL. [EXCEPTIONS TO TESTIMONY.] WHERE testimony taken under a commission has been returned and filed in court for more than eight months, and been made the foundation of the Au- ditor's report, to which report exceptions were filed, and which was submit- ted for final decision, it is too late for one of the defendants, who was ex- amined as a witness, to ask that the commission be remanded upon the ground that the commissioner had made mistakes in writing down his testimony. Exceptions to such testimony, upon the ground that the parties had no notice that the defendant was to be examined as a witness, and that they, there- fore, had no opportunity of cross-examination, will not be sustained, if they had notice of the time and place of the execution of the commission. The omission to procure the previous order of the court for the examination of a defendant as a witness, is a mere irregularity, and when it is apparent |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 4, Page 119 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