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

HITCH VS. FENBY. 195
which the decree passed to be due, and I should most reluctantly
permit myself to be influenced, by any evidence they could offer,
to believe the contrary.
It is not to be tolerated that parties shall make admissions,
and fortify those admissions by the highest of all earthly sanc-
tions, and then be allowed to say that they did not mean that
which their language confirmed by the most sacred obligation,
to speak the truth, plainly imports.
The argument has been pressed that the proceedings which
led to the decree of 1841, and the decree itself, are entitled to
less consideration than otherwise they would be, because they
all'appear to be in the handwriting of the same solicitor. It
is true they do appear to be so, but it is equally true that the
answer of Joshua and William Hitch is signed by themselves
in proper person, and also by another solicitor of this court.
And when to this evidence of perfect fairness in the conduct of
the cause is added the fact that all the admissions of the answer
are sanctified by the solemn oath of the defendants there, it
surely would require a weight of evidence infinitely stronger
than has been produced here to lead to the conclusion that noth-
ing admitted was true, and that all these proceedings are but a
solemn mockery. I have read the evidence carefully, and can
find nothing in it to shake the conviction which the answer of
1841 is so well calculated to make, that there was then an ascer-
tained sum due Fenby, consisting partly of advances, &c. then
made, and of liabilities which tie had assumed for these com-
plainants, and which he afterwards paid.
There are, moreover, other circumstances to be found in the
proceedings in the original cause, subsequent to the decree of
January, 1841, strongly in opposition to the theory of the
present bill, that that decree was not for an ascertained sum,
but was only intended as a security for such balance as might
be found to be due Fenby upon an adjustment of their dealings
thereafter to be made.
It appears, as has been shown, that after the decree was
passed, to wit: on the 15th and 29th of September, 1842, pe-
titions were filed by the complainant, Fenby, asking for a mod-

  		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 195   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