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

OHIO LIFE INS. AND TRUST CO. VS. WINN & ROSS. 263
It is also objected that the allowance of the claims filed since
the order of the 10th of January last, that they come in too
late, because it is said that order directed the Auditor to state
a final account, it being as expressed in the opinion fair to infer
that all the holders of Jones' paper given in exchange for that
of Hancock and Mann, had already come in.
In cases like the present, the practice of the court is to allow
creditors to come in at any time before a distribution of the
proceeds of the sale has been actually made. So long as the
fund is under the control of the court, it will let a creditor
in who has been guilty of no negligence, and if necessary send
the case to the Auditor to have a new account stated at his ex-
pense, as it must frequently happen that notwithstanding the
usual method is resorted to to notify creditors, they are not in
fact apprized of the proceedings. Strike's Case, 1 Bland,
86; Hammond vs. Hammond, 2 Bland, 364. If, to be sure,
a creditor has been notified of the proceedings, and after a
reasonable time allowed him to support his claim by proofs, he
has failed to do so, and an account rejecting his claim because
of such failure has been ratified by the court, it will not be re-
opened at his instance to permit him to introduce fresh evidence,
though the fund still remains in the hands of the trustee. Kent
vs. O'Hara, 7 G. & J., 212. But, as observed by the Chief
Justice in that case, if the claim of the creditor had not been
submitted to the Chancellor, and passed upon before the fund
remaining in the hands of the trustee had been parted with, it
would have presented a different case.
In this case these additional claims which have been filed
since the last order have not been before submitted to the Chan-
cellor, and passed upon by him, and, therefore, I think if they
are sufficiently sustained by evidence, the holders of them are
entitled to participate with the rest of the creditors in the fund
to be distributed.
The mortgages in this case, as has been several times said,
were executed for the security of Dawson and Norwood, and
therefore, as has already been decided, the holders of the paper
of Jones, endorsed by these parties, given in exchange for the

  		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 263   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