| Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 24 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
24 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. [The facts of the case are stated in the opinion.] THE CHANCELLOR : This case is submitted, on the part of the defendant, upon the petition of the complainant and toe order of the Court of the 12th of March last, requiring the defendant to bring in a certain sum of money, or show cause to the contrary by a day limited for that purpose. The case is submitted without proof, and therefore the pro- priety of compelling the defendant to bring in the money de- pends entirely upon the admissions of the answer; and upon these admissions indeed the complainant rests his application. The rule upon this subject is well stated, by the late Chancel- lor, in McKim vs. Thompson, 1 Bland, 150. At page 359, he says "that those who make this motion" (that is, a motion to have money brought in), " must show that they have an in- terest in the sum of money proposed to be called in, and that he who holds it in possession has no equitable right or title to it whatever; and the facts on which these positions are to be based, must be found in the case as it then stands. Either admitted or so established as to be open to no further contro- versy at any subsequent stage of the proceedings." Now in this case the answer exhibits certain accounts, show- ing a balance due the complainant, upon which the defendant says he was willing to settle and pay the balance; but that complainant had refused to receive such balance, and subse- quently filed his bill in this Court. But this exhibition of the accounts and declared willingness to pay the balance appear- ing by them to be due the complainant, is accompanied by the qualification " that the respondent believed, and still believes, that the balance there struck in favor of the complainant, was too large." And in a subsequent part of the answer, the de- fendant, after alleging that he had paid certain sums with which he had not been credited, claims that he is now entitled to have them credited in his settlement with the complainant. The admission, therefore, perhaps, can be regarded as no- thing more than an offer to compromise a disputed account, |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 24 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