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

60 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
The Auditor states that he was engaged in the work 186 days,
which at the rate of charge allowed by law, amounts to the sum
claimed.
I do not propose now to decide finally upon this exception.
I am not aware that any case has ever occurred before in the
court in which the fees of the Auditor amounted to so large a
sum, and I shall, therefore, leave the point open for explanation
and proof on. both sides.
It was observed in the course of the argument that the defend-
ant was not consulted, and indeed had no notice, that the appoint-
ment of a special Auditor would be applied for, or who would
be nominated, until after the decree of the 1st of August had
passed.
The Chancellor was under a different impression, but in consid-
eration of the statement now made by the defendant's solicitor,
and without in the slightest degree intimating that the appoint-
ment was an injudicious or improper one, the case will not now
be sent back to the same Auditor, it being deemed best to give
the parties an opportunity of presenting their views upon the
subject.
A reasonable time will be allowed for that purpose, after
which an order will be passed, giving such directions for stating
the accounts as the present condition of the cause may seem to
Justify.
PRATT and GLENN, for Complainants.
WILLIAMS and SCHLEY, for Defendants.
ESTATE OF LORIMAN CHEW,
A LUNATIC.
[LUNATIC—LUNACY.]
JUME TERM, 1849.
IF the committee of the person and estate of a lunatic has given a well secured
bond for the faithful administration of his trust, and is in other respects a fit
person to have the custody and estate of the lunatic, his insolvency, in fact,
(not having taken the benefit of the insolvent laws,) is not cause for removal.

  		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 60   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