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
Bland's Reports, Chancery Court 1809-1832
Volume 201, Page 116   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

116 BURCH 9. SCOTT.

not authenticated by the signature of the witnesses; "that by the
return of the commission to Magruder, it appears that one witness
was examined, not on oath, but on affirmation, neither the form,
nor the terms of which are set forth, nor has the witness signed his
deposition; that this plaintiff, William Scott, is the administrator of
the late Kinsey Gittings, and the other plaintiffs are his children
and next of kin, who as such are the persons really and exclusively
interested in the matter in controversy, and ought to have been
made parties to the suit, in which the decree of the 4th of August,
1826, was passed. Instead of which this plaintiff, William Scott,
alone was made defendant and charged by the decree, in that case,
in his own proper person, although he could only be held liable, if
at all, as administrator of the late Kinsey Gittings, being as such
no more than a trustee for his creditors and next of kin.

They further state, that, from certain judicial proceedings and
other circumstances, it appeared, that this plaintiff, William Scott,
was entitled to various credits, which had not been given, and an
ex parte decree had been obtained by Thomas Burch, and others,
in that case, for a sum greatly exceeding their just due, by their
fraudulently concealing the proper sets off and deductions, some
of which they had all along admitted, and others were clear and
indisputable.

And they further state, that this plaintiff, William Scott, was
frequently, and contrary to his anticipations and expectations, dis-
appointed in having the business put in train for a decision; he at
length became so anxious and uneasy on the subject, that, hearing
of his counsel being in attendance at the Court of Appeals at An-
napolis, at the June term of 1824, he came from his home in
Montgomery to Annapolis, for the express and only purpose of
having an interview with his counsel, and getting his answer
drawn, and filed, &c. But he found his counsel on the eve of
returning to Washington, whither he accompanied him, and imme-
diately on their arrival, the answer was drawn, regularly sworn to,
and put into the hands of his counsel, to be transmitted by the
stage next morning, to the register of this court; that he had
frequent interviews afterwards with his counsel on the subject; he
as well as Ms counsel, took it for granted, the answer and exhibits
had been duly received; and he was informed by his counsel, that
he had made an arrangement with Mr. Key, one of the opposite
counsel, who resided in Georgetown, to fix upon some day conve-
nient for them both, to go to Annapolis and argue the cause; and

 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Bland's Reports, Chancery Court 1809-1832
Volume 201, Page 116   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 02, 2018
Maryland State Archives