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

472 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
answer also states, that from the date of the settlement in
February, 1842, up to the service of the subpoena upon the
defendant in this case, which was subsequent to the maturity
of the note, the alleged errors had not been ascertained nor
notified to him, and that on that account there is no ground for
disturbing the settlement.
It is also objected that the remedy of the complainant upon
the note given upon the settlement is ample and complete at
law, and, therefore, this court should not interfere.
Some evidence has been offered, but I do not deem it neces-
sary or proper at this time to express any opinion in regard
to it.
The counsel in their arguments, differ essentially, not only
with reference to the principles upon which the settlement was
to be made, but there is a material discrepancy in the result
to which they arrive, assuming the principles of the adjustment
set up in the answer to be those upon which the parties agreed.
The paper marked, exhibit B., filed with the bill, is admitted
to be a true copy of the settlement made on the 27th of Feb-
ruary, 1842, for the balance appearing due by which the note
of the defendant was given, and this sum he insists in his an-
swer is the amount really due from him upon the principles of
the compromise agreed upon by the parties. The plaintiff, on the
other hand, contends that even assuming the defendant to be
right in regard to the terms of the compromise, still the amount
appearing by the settlement to be due is too small, and that,
therefore, in any view of the case, there is error and mistake
which a court of equity ought to correct.
Statements and calculations are submitted by the counsel on
both sides, with widely different results, and as it is impossible
that the Chancellor can undertake to reconcile these statements
or determine which is right, there appears to be no alternative
but to send the case to the proper officer of the court for an
account.
In the argument of the counsel for the defendant, it is stated
that after the bill in this case was filed, the note given by him
upon the settlement was withdrawn, and an action at law insti-

  		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 472   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  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives