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

258 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
this paper of Hancock & Mann, endorsed by Dawson & Nor-
wood, had put his name to it as endorser, and passed it for
value, could there be a doubt of the right of the assignees to
share in the fund ? But if instead of doing so, he passed his
own notes to Dawson & Norwood in exchange, which notes were
endorsed by them, he, Jones, retaining the notes of Hancock
& Mann, why should not the parties who receive these notes of
Jones be, by substitution, considered as the holders of the notes
of Hancock & Mann, and as such entitled to the benefit of the
security ?
My opinion, therefore, is, that the petitioners, Hopkins &
Brothers, and the other parties who hold the paper of Samuel
Jones, endorsed by Dawson & Norwood, which paper was given
in exchange for the paper of Hancock & Mann, now in the pos-
session of the trustees of Jones, are to be treated as if they held
this latter paper, and entitled to dividends of the fund. And
when, upon the paper of Jones, the names of Dawson & Nor-
wood do not appear, the same right of substitution exists, when
upon that of Hancock & Mann, for which such paper of Jones
was given in exchange, Dawson & Norwood are endorsers, the
object of the mortgages being to secure Dawson & Norwood.
The Auditor, in his report of the 10th of July, 1849, says
that it appears that no part of the paper given by Jones in ex-
change for the paper of Hancock & Mann, endorsed by Daw-
son & Norwood, has been paid by Jones, and submits whether
any portion of the fund should be assigned to his trustees,
Winn & Ross, and whether, as soon as it shall clearly appear
how many of the claims filed are really entitled to substitution
as exchange paper, they ought not to receive their proportion
of the fund, to the exclusion of said trustees.
That these trustees can receive no part of these funds until
they shall have paid in whole or in part the notes given by
Jones in exchange for those of Hancock & Mann, in their pos-
session, has been already decided. This is not the case of
cross paper, given for mutual accommodation, when each party
is liable to pay his own. The paper of Hancock & Mann was
not to be, nor was it in fact, negotiated by Jones. He held it

  		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 258   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  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives