|
stayed if no bond be given. Bryson v.
Petty, 183.
No appeal lies from adjudgment in the
land office in a caveat case. Cunning-
ham v. Browning, 320.
The manner and course of appeal from
the judge of the land office of the East-
ern Shore to the chancellor. Willing
v. Wright, 321; Hopper v. Coleston,
322.
There is no saving in the act limiting ap-
peals in favour of persons non compos
mentis. Colegate D. Owings' case, 408.
The cases in which an appeal was allow-
ed, and the mode of prosecuting such
appeals from the colonial courts to the
king in council. The Chancellor's case,
608, note.
The difference between the powers and
jurisdiction of original and appellate
courts considered.
ATTACHMENT.
A foreign attachment, or some equivalent
process, has been introduced into all
codes. Chase v. Manhardt, 342.
The only object of an attachment is to
enable a creditor to obtain satisfaction
from property here belonging to his
absent or absconding debtor, 344.
The garnishee may make defence for him-
self alone or for the defendant; but if he
does either, or if he makes no defence
and fails to bring the money into court
he must pay interest, 344.
The plaintiff may have only a part of the
attached debt condemned, 346.
ATTORNEY.,
Money may upon the production of proper
vouchers be paid out of court to the
attorney in fact of the party. Hoye v.
Penn, 40.
AUDITOR.
The nature of an auditor's duties; he is a
ministerial officer who cannot constitu-
tionally be clothed with any of the ju-
dicial power of the chancellor. Dorsey
v. Hammond, 464, 469, 471.
The legal fees of the auditor are a part of
the costs and may be recovered as such,
467.
Where some of the proofs have been ob-
jected to, such objections must be dis-
posed of before the case can be sent by
the court to the auditor with directions
to state an account from the pleadings
and proofs in the case. Strike's case,
96.
7ne form of a commission to auditors to
state an account and report. Clapham
v. Thompson, 124; Dorsey v. Dulany,
465.
Three persons appointed, after the act of
1785, ch. 72, as special auditors. Bryson
v. Petty, 1S2.
87
|
AWARD.
A case referred by consent to arbitration,
an award returned, and a decree passed
thereupon. McKim v. Thompson, 175
By referring a case to arbitration the court
divests itself of its judicial power.
Dorsey v. Hammond, 469.
There is no legislative enactment relative
to the reference of suits depending in
chancery to arbitration. Phillips v.
Shipley, 516.
The court may with the consent of par-
ties refer the case to arbitration and en-
force the award, 517.
An award may be set aside on good cause
shown, 517.
A party cannot revoke a reference with-
out the sanction of the court, 517.
BILL.
The nature of a supplemental bill. Burch
v. Scott, 121.
A plaintiff can only recover on the strength
of his own title as shewn by his bill,
which as to that can be sustained by no
extraneous matter; but to explain an
ambiguity, resort may be had to the in-
terrogating part or to the prayers
Lingan v. Henderson, 249 255.
The special prayer for relief must be such
as me case set out in bill will warrant
and the law authorize, if legal and not
covered by the bill it must be amend-
ed, 250.
Under the general prayer, any relief war-
ranted by the case as set forth in the
bill may be granted, though not orally
asked for, 251.
The plaintiff may by his bill state his
case in the alternative, so that each be
a case of equity jurisdiction; and so
that he thereby evades no rule for the
protection of suitors, 252.
Although the bill be informal, yet, if not
objected to, it is enough if it be shewn
at the hearing to be substantially suffi-
cient, 271.
Where the plaintiff by his bill offers to
perform his part of the contract, and
the answer admits or sets out an agree-
ment which is proved, there may be a
decree against each without a cross
bill. -Dorsey v. Campbell, 359; Wat-
kins v. Watkins, 359; Long v. Gorsuch,
361; Etchison v. Dorsey, 586.
The case, as stated in the bill, must ap-
pear at the hearing to be of such a
character as belongs to the jurisdiction
of a court of chancery. Estep v. Wat-
kins, 489; Iglehart v. Armiger, 528.
Although on a bill for specific perform-
ance there may be a decree as well in
favour of the defendant as of the plain-
tiff, yet if the parties suffer it to be
passed in favour of the plaintiff alone,
the defendant cab only be relieved by a
cross bill. Etchison v. Dorsey, 536.
|
