| Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 155 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
GILL VS. CLAGETT. 155 Henrietta Hall, and her husband, Richard Hall, who was then living, had assigned to the testator of petitioner the money sought to be recovered in the original suit, to secure the pay- ment of a sum of money due him from the said Hall and wife. At the time this assignment was made, the original cause, being that of the said Hall and wife vs. William D. Clagett and others, was depending in the Court of Appeals upon appeal from the decree of this court, the object of which suit was to recover from the defendants certain sums claimed by the female complainant under the will of her father, Joseph W. Olagett. The paper containing the assignment is addressed to the clerk of the Court of Appeals, and directs him to enter the cause for the use of the petitioner's testator, William Stewart, the object being as expressed upon the face of the assignment, to secure to him the sum of $170 62, due by the assignors to him for house rent and fire wood, and was made especially in con- sideration of the said Steward's agreeing to forbear selling cer- tain property liable to distress; the assignment to be void in case the debt should be paid from other sums, and the surplus, if any, to remain to the sole and separate use of the said Hen- rietta M. Hall. By a copy of the docket entries in the Court of Appeals of December term, 1835, it appears the case was entered in conformity with the directions, and on the 14th of January, 1836, the same cause in this court was also marked for the use of William Stewart. The cause in the Court of Appeals was heard and decided at December term, 1887, when for the reason assigned it was re- manded to the Court of Chancery for the purpose of making a new party, and taking further proof, &c. An amended bill making such new party was filed on the 14th of February, 1838, but in docketing the case the Register omitted the entries which had been made in the original cause, and the use, there- fore, to William Stewart did not appear among the docket en- tries of the case made by the amended bill, though the amended bill was nothing more than a continuation of the original cause. It was while the case made by the amended bill was depend- ing that the compromise and settlement of the 27th of Febru- |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 155 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