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 4, Page 14   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

14 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
THE CHANCELLOR:
This case is now submitted for final hearing, and it being
admitted that the amount of the judgment at law, by the de-
fendant against the plaintiff, has been paid, the effort of the
complainant is to have the money refunded to him.
The case as proved, upon which the complainant relies, is
not the case made by his bill. The bill alleges that McNeir,
the father-in-law of the defendant, promised that the judgment
should be entered "satisfied," in consideration of professional
services rendered by the complainant for McNeir and the de-
fendant; but the proof is, that the defendant, Zane, promised,
or directed, that it should be entered " settled." The equity
of the bill being denied by the answer, and the proof not sup-
porting the bill, but making a different case, it may well be
doubted whether, if there was no other objection, the com-
plainant could obtain relief.
There is, however, another objection. The defendant, Zane,
had a judgment at law against the complainant and another,
and the complainant has a claim against the defendant and
McNeir, for professional services rendered them. The aver-
ment of the bill is, that the complainant " had been employed
by the said. Zane and one William McNeir, the father-in-law of
the said Zane, as solicitor in Chancery," &c. He claims then
to set off these services to those parties jointly, or upon their
joint employment of him, against a judgment at law against
himself and one Nicholas E. Watkins. This, I think it clear,
cannot be done, either in equity or at law, and that in both
Courts, to authorize a set-off, the debt must be mutual, and due
to and from the same persons in the same capacity. Dale vs.
Cooke, 4 Johns. Oh. Rep,, 11.
The complainant therefore cannot succeed, and his bill must
be dismissed; but, under the circumstances of the case, I think
it would be harsh to subject him to costs, and I shall make each
party pay his own costs.
J. N. WATKINS, for Complainant.
N. HAMMOND, 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 4, Page 14   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  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives