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

92 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
Bland, 533, that according to the English practice, choses in
action are not liable to creditors, and that they cannot be taken
on a fieri facias, or under a sequestration from chancery, or be
at all touched in equity for the benefit of creditors, and most
of the cases which have been referred to in the argument before
me are cited by him in support of his opinion.
But I apprehend the rule laid down in that case must be
taken with some qualification, for when the chose in action is in
the hands of a third party, who is willing to abide by the order
of the court, or who admits it to belong to the person against
whom the sequestration has issued, the court will consider it
liable to sequestration, and will order it to be paid into court.
This is stated to be the practice in 2 Daniel's, Ch. Pr; 1261,
after an examination of the cases; but when the amount or the
title of the party whose property is sequestered, is disputed by
the person holding the chose in action, the same author states it
to be clear from the cases that the court cannot make an order
upon him, and the only question is when the party in possession
of the chose refuses to admit or dispute his liability, whether
the court will authorize the institution of proceedings at law or
in equity, for the purpose of enforcing the sequestration. This
point is said still to remain undecided. 2 Daniel's, Oh. Pr.,
1262.
In Hoffman's Oh. Pr; 157,158, it is said to result from all
the cases, that if the party indebted, or holding the chose in
action resists, no order can be made upon him. And in Grew
et al vs. Breed et al, 12 Metcalf, 363, the language of Lord
Langsdale in 1 Beavan, 269, is quoted with approbation, in
which he says, "that it is only in a clear and simple case that a
sequestration can be enforced by order, and that in other cases
it may be necessary to resort to an action or suit under the
direction of the court."
In the case before this court it is very clear that Mr. Ward
does not admit that the money in his hands belongs to the per-
son against whom the sequestration issued, nor is he willing to
abide by the order of this court. On the contrary, he presents
the deed of Betts to him, in trust, for purposes which he sup-

  		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 92   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  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives