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

GILL VS. CLAGETT. 153
R. W. GILL, ADMINISTRATOR OF
SOMERVILLE PINKNEY
AND HENRIETTA M. HALL, SEPTEMBER TERM, 1853.
vs.
WILLIAM D, CLAGETT,
[PRIORITY OF ASSIGNMENT—ASSIGNMENT OF A SUIT—CONSTRUCTlON OF WILL.]
A SUIT in this court for the recovery of a sum of money was in October, 1835,
for a valuable consideration assigned by the plaintiff's, and the assignee had
the case entered for his use upon the docket of the Court of Appeals, where
it was then pending upon appeal, and in January, 1836, had the same cause
marked for his use upon the docket of this court. The cause being subse-
quently remanded for amendment and further proof, an amended bill was
filed in 1838, when the entry for the use was not marked upon the docket,
and has not been since. HELD—
That this assignee was not guilty of laches or neglect, and is entitled to the pro-
ceeds of the suit in preference to a party who received an assignment of the
same in 1841 or 1845, to secure a pre-existing indebtedness.
A party who has obtained the assignment of a suit or decree, has done all
which can be reasonably required of him when he has caused the entry to
his use to be made; he is not bound to see that the entry to his use is duly
copied whenever the cause is transferred from docket to docket.
A promise to pay a creditor out of the fruits of a pending action, and a promise
to assign the action to him are very different things; in the former case credit
is given to the party making the promise; in the latter, a specific security is
looked to.
A testator devised certain lands in trust for "the use and benefit" of his
daughter during the life of her husband, directing the trustees not to pay
the proceeds to him, but any "receipts or writings witnessing the payment
of such proceeds or profits to his daughter shall be a sufficient discharge of
said trustees." HELD—
That the daughter was entitled during the life of her husband to receive the
proceeds of the trust estate, and having the power to receive, she had the
correlative power to dispose of them, at least for the support of herself and
children.
[The devise in the will of Joseph W. Clagett in favor of his
daughter, Henrietta Maria Hall, referred to in the latter part
of the following opinion of the Chancellor, is as follows:
"Item. 1 give and devise unto my son, William D. Clagett,
and my son-in-law, Charles Hill, and their heirs forever, one-half
of all my lands in Calvert county, in trust to and for the use and
VOL.iv—13

  		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 153   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