| Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 88 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
88 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. another petition in the cause in which, after reciting the issuing of the writ, and the proceedings upon the first petition, they allege that at the date of the service of the former writ of se- questration, Ward and the corporations had moneys in their hands of said Betts, which should have been applied in satisfac- tion of their decree, and that since the return of the writ, the corporations had paid all moneys in their hands of said Betts to said Ward, and that the latter was about to apply the same to other purposes upon the ground that as the moneys were not in his hands at the date of the service of the writ, he was at liberty to do so; whilst the petitioners insist that as said moneys were in the hands of said corporations at that time, and were paid to Ward, with notice of service, they are bound in his hands as fully as they would have been in the hands of the corporations. And then, in order, as the complainants say, to conclude all questions on the subject, they pray for another writ of seques- tration, and further that said Ward may be required to set forth what moneys and effects of said Betts are in his hands, and how and when received, and that he may be required to bring the same into court to be applied in satisfaction of the decree. The writ was ordered to be issued on the same day, and by the same order, Mr. Ward was required to answer the petition by a day named. The writ issued and was laid in the hands of Ward on the 27th of the same month and year, and on the 17th of May following, he filed his answer. In this answer, after admitting the decree, he submits a copy of a deed of trust, executed by said Betts to him, and a copy of his report, as trustee, made to the Superior Court of Balti- more city, and of the order of said court, and notice to credi- tors, in pursuance thereof, and then proceeds as follows: "That respondent had supposed, and yet believes, that the original writ of sequestration was issued after the execution and per- fecting of the deed of trust to him." "And he submits, such being the case, the course adopted by him, as trustee, prepara- tory to distribution, in pursuance of the provisions of the deed, was right and proper, and that such distribution ought to be made," and he then asked to be heard in the premises before the court should finally act. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 88 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