| Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 402 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
402 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. in the administration of justice which could only be lamented if the counsel for the defendant in this case is right, but which would bo remediless. The argument is, that this court cannot review the decrees of of the Court of Appeals. It can only execute them when di- rected to do so. But suppose, after the decree of the Court of Appeals in this case was passed, the mortgagor had paid the balance of the debt in money, and notwithstanding such pay- ment, the mortgagee insisted upon the execution of the decree, will "it be said that under such circumstances this court could not interfere by injunction to prevent the wrong ? But can it make any difference either in the power of this court, or in the equity of the case, whether the debt is extinguished by a pay- ment in money, or in that which is equivalent to money, as settled by the Superior Court itself? In. neither case does this court assume to review the decree of the Court of Appeals, but upon a new state of facts it prevents it from being used as an instru- ment of injustice. To review would, of course, involve the power to reverse either upon the record as it stood in the Supe- rior Court, or upon facts arising subsequently. This the court unequivocally disclaims, but it is thought that when it is made to appear satisfactorily that the decree of the Court of Appeals has been satisfied, either by a payment in money, or money's equivalent, and when, notwithstanding such satisfaction, the party who obtained the decree is proceeding to enforce it by execution, this court may, and it is its duty, to prevent so man- ifest a wrong. The cases cited by defendant's counsel of West vs. Skip, 1 Ves. Sen., 245, and Johnson vs. Northeby, 2 Vernon, 407, lay down the rule applicable to bills brought to carry former decrees into execution, and they show that as a general rule upon such bills, the court can only do that, and not vary, though sometimes this has been done to attain the justice of the case, though, a? stated in Vernon, this must be done upon the proofs in the for- mer cause, and not upon any new proof's. But the present is not a bill to carry a former decree into effect, but a bill to arrest the execution of a former decree, not |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 402 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