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

264 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
paper of Hancock and Mann, held by the trustees of Jones, are
entitled to dividends of the fund. And 'when upon the paper
of Jones the names of Dawson and Norwood do not appear
the same right exists and founded upon the same principle of
substitution, when their names do appear upon the paper of
Hancock and Mann for which the paper of Jones was given in
exchange.
The Auditor states in his last report that he has admitted
into the account, filed therewith, all of the claims filed where
the exchange and counter notes appear to have been dated
after the 11th of April, 1846, and where the names of Han-
cock and Mann appear on either the exchange or counter notes.
This course on the part of the Auditor is supposed to be in.
conflict with the former judgment of the court which, accord-
ing to the argument filed by the solicitor of one of the parties.
determines that the right to participate in the fund depends
not upon the date of the notes of Hancock and Mann, hut of
those of Jones given in exchange. Such, however, is not the
view taken in either of the former opinions in this case. Up-
on this point it was said in the opinion of the 10th of January
last, ''that the notes of Hancock and Mann, held by "Winn and
Ross, trustees of Samuel Jones, Jr., winch, bear date prior to
the mortgage of the 11th of April, 1846, are not entitled to
the benefit of that security, and must be excluded from partici-
pating in the fund," &c. And as the holders of the paper of
Jones given in exchange for that of Hancock and Mann are
let in upon the principle of substitution, it would necessarily
follow that the parties holding it are placed precisely in the
condition they would have occupied if they held the obligations
of Hancock and Mann, and that if the latter would have been
excluded because dated prior to the mortgage, so must the for-
mer. This seems to result from the principle of substitution
which places the substitute in all respects in the place of the
party substituted. I am of opinion, therefore, that the Audi-
tor was right in excluding the notes in question from dividends
of the fund.
By the order of the 10th of January last, the cause was re-

  		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 264   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