| Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 261 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
OHIO LIFE INS. AND TRUST CO. VS. WINN & ROSS. 261 THE CHANCELLOR : Since the order of the 10th of January last, the Auditor has made a further report, and stated sundry accounts to which ex- ceptions have been filed by the parties, and the questions hav- ing been argued orally and in writing by the solicitors of the parties, are now, by agreement, submitted for decision. The cause has been depending since October, 1846, and it is to be regretted that so much time has been consumed before the parties really entitled can receive the benefit of the fund in- tended for them. I am persuaded, however, when the circum- stances connected with this case are considered, and the num- ber and variety of the questions which have been raised and discussed are brought into view, that however much we may regret the delay, it will be quite apparent that the causes •which have produced it are abundantly sufficient for the pur- pose. Since the order of the 10th of January, a number of addi- tional claims have been filed, and a portion of these having been allowed by the Auditor, the last argument has been di- rected chiefly to the question whether, as against the plaintiffs, who have plead the statute of limitations, these claims are barred ? According to the established rule of this court, adopted and approved of by the Court of Appeals, "the statute of limitations runs against a claim or debt down to the time it is exhibited." And as the claims is question are founded upon promissory notes, and more than three years have elapsed between their maturity and exhibition in this court, the bar, so far as the plaintiffs are concerned, would be complete, and they would, with respect to the plaintiffs, be excluded if there was nothing in the case to save them from the operation of the statute. Hall vs. Creswell, 12 Gr. & J., 48. These creditors are here seeking payment of their claims out of the proceeds of mortgaged property pledged for their se- curity, they being, according to the former opinion, subrogated in the place of those whose claims come within the terms of the mortgage, and it therefore appears to me that unless the de- VOL.iv—22 |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 261 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