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

56 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
and that to enable him to do this he was compelled to borrow,
in various modes and from various persons, upon his own per-
sonal credit, nearly $15,000. The receipts from partnership
assets and the cash on hand at the death of Samuel House be-
ing only $13,383 34. Hence it follows that though the credi-
tors of the firm have been paid to an amount exceeding $27,000,
this has been accomplished, if the answer and exhibits are to be
relied upon, upon the individual credit of the surviving partner
to the amount stated above, and that he, in respect of these
advances, was entitled to be substituted as a creditor of the
firm in the place of the original creditors who had been paid by
means raised upon his credit.
When comparing the statement of the debts of the firm which
have been paid by the defendant with the papers marked C. and
W. A. H., No. 2, it will be found that a very large amount of
the claims embraced in these two papers have been paid, and
consequently when the statement of the liabilities of the firm
marked (B.) was prepared on the 12th of April last, the names
of the creditors whose claims were embraced in the previous state-
ments, and who had been paid, do not appear. But the paper
marked B., although it did not contain the names of the credi-
tors mentioned in paper 0 .and W. A. H., No. 2, who had been
in the interval, between the 1st of January and the 12th of
April last, does, as is alleged in the answer, contain the names of
those parties from whom the defendant had borrowed the means
to pay claims against the firm so much exceeding the amount
which had been realized from its assets. If this statement is
true, and the exhibits filed with the answer and the proof of
O'Donnell support it, then the items of indebtedness embraced in
exhibit (B.) and which are not to be found in exhibits C. and
W. A. H., No. 2, are not new and distinct items of indebted-
ness, but these new creditors whose names are contained in ex-
hibit (B.) merely take the place of the old creditors whose claims
were paid by means procured from them. There was some ir-
regularity, it ia true, in putting down the names of the parties
from whom the defendant had borrowed money and notes, as
creditors of the firm. They were in truth creditors of the sur-

  		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 56   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  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives