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

190 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
as, in the further progress of the cause, may appear to be
proper.
The petition of Mr. Wilson prays that the trustee who made
the sale, under the decree in this cause, may be authorized and
directed, by an order, to credit upon his purchase, the amount
of Henry Robinson's interest in the lands so sold. But, as for
the reasons stated, I am of opinion, he is not entitled to this
relief, his petition will be dismissed.
PBATT and RANDALL, for Wilson.
ALEXANDER, for the Trustee.
JOSHUA HITCH,
VS. DECEMBER TERM, 1850.
SAMUEL FENBY.
[BILL OF REVIEW——PRACTICE——USURY.]
A BILL of review for new facts or newly discovered facts, must aver that such
facts came to the knowledge of the complainant within nine months prior to
the filing of his bill.
Between the same parties, and for the same matters, a new original bill cannot
be brought after a decree has been made in a cause and enrolled, unless it
was obtained by fraud.
A decree was passed in 1841 for the sale of certain mortgaged property to pay
a balance claimed in the bill to be due on the mortgage debt, which sum was
admitted by the answer of the defendants under oath to be due. Seven years
afterwards', the defendants filed their bill to open tins decree upon the ground
that it was passed in pursuance of an agreement as a mere security for any
balance that might be found due on settlement of their mutual dealings, and
then charging usury and other objections against complainant's claim.
HELD—
1st. That after such lapse of time, it would require a very strong and clear
case to justify the interference of the court to prevent the alleged fraudulent
and oppressive use of this decree.
2d. Not having set up the defence of usury at the time the decree was passed,
although he was well aware of the facts upon which the charge is based, and
having offered no satisfactory excuse why he did not take the defence then
he cannot be allowed now to open the decree to let in this defence.
Prior to the act of 1845, ch. 352, the plea of usury by the mortgagor or his

  		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 190   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