| Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 566 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
566 INDEX. INFANCY, INFANTS—Continued. 4. The answer of an infant by his guardian is not evidence against him, and the necessity of establishing the case as stated in the pleadings by proof is not obviated by making the infant a plaintiff. Benson vs. Wnght et al, 278. 5. A mortgage other reversionary interest in real and personal estate, ex- ecuted by a feme covert infant to secure a debt due by a firm of which her husband was a member, is absolutely void and incapable of con- firmation. Cronise vs. Clarke el al, 403. 6. She may insist upon her incapacity to execute such an instrument not- withstanding a decree has been passed for the sale of the mortgaged property under the act of 1833, ch. 181, the proceeding to obtain such decree under that act being exports. Ib. INJUNCTION. 1. Upon a motion to dissolve an injunction, the responsive averments of the answer in the absence of countervailing testimony are to be taken as true, and if the facts constituting the equity of the bill are denied by such positive responsive averments, the injunction must be dis- solved. Wood vs. Patterson, 335. 2. In this ease an injunction was granted upon the averment in the bill, that defendant offered to compromise a balance appearing to be due the complainant by certain accounts rendered, by the payment of a certain sum, and that in the addition of these accounts there was an error of $1,000. The answer denied this allegation by averring that defendant's offer was made without any reference to the stated balance, but with reference to the details and items of the account, and to the grounds of the defendant's claims against complainant. HELD— That the equity of the bill is sworn away by this answer, and the in- junction must be dissolved. Ib. 3. The Court of Chancery in this state will not interfere by injunction where the injury is not irreparable and destructive to the plaintiff's estate, but is susceptible of perfect pecuniary compensation, and for which the party may obtain adequate satisfaction at law. Cockey vs. Carroll, 344. 4. Upon motion to dissolve an injunction upon bill and answer, the answer, when speaking responsively to the bill, must be taken as true, and if it denies the averment of the bill upon which the equity for the in- junction rests, the injunction must be dissolved. Harrises. Sangstons, 394. 5. Though this court has not the power to review, in the proper sense of that term, a decree of the Court of Appeals, either upon the state of facts upon which that court acted or any others, yet when a state of facts has arisen since such decree was passed showing its satisfaction, this court may interfere by injunction to prevent the decree from be- ing used as an instrument of injustice, and an original bill is the prop- er form to be adopted in such circumstances. McClellan vs. Crook, 398. 6. On motion to dissolve on bill and answer, so much of the bill as is not denied by the answer, is taken for true. Cronise vs. dark et al, 403. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 566 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