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

94 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
deed like that in question, may seek the protection and direction
of the court, and that it has jurisdiction to protect him in the
performance of his duties. This power of the court does not de-
pend upon, nor is it derived from the act of Assembly referred
to, but falls within the general scope of its authority over trusts.
Now, whether the mode adopted by Mr. Ward in invoking
the aid of the Superior Court was the appropriate one or not, ia
not the question. The question is, had the court jurisdiction
over the subject matter ? for if it had, however irregular the
proceeding was, it could not be regarded as coram non judice
and void, nor could the irregularities be revised by this court.
Bowie vs. Jones, 1 Gill, 208. The decision of a court of com-
petent jurisdiction, when coming incidentally in question, or
offered as evidence of title in another court, is conclusive of the
question decided, no matter how irregular or informal the pro-
ceeding may be, or what mistakes or errors the court may make
in the matter adjudicated. 2 G. and J., 50.
The proceeding of the trustee in this case is said to be found-
ed upon the peculiar practice of the Baltimore court. Be this
as it may, and considering the proceeding wholly irregular, yet
still, in view of the unquestionable right of the trustee to call
upon that court to aid and protect him in the performance of
his trust, and in view, likewise, of the undoubted jurisdiction
of the court over the subject matter, it seems to me impossible
to say that the proceeding is an absolute nullity and void. The
object of Mr. Ward in applying to the court was to bring in
all the creditors having a right to participate in the trust fund,
and the order of the court directing notice to be given, was to
bring them in accordingly. Now, if that court proceeds to
distribute the money among the creditors, or the trustee does
so under its authority and by its directions, can it be success-
fully contended that he would not be protected ? I think not.
I cannot, therefore, regard the proceeding in the Superior Court
as void, and hence it appears to me it would not be proper in
this court to authorize the institution of a suit at law or in equity
for the purpose of enforcing the sequestration issued from this
court. It might bring on a collision between the two courts,

  		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 94   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