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

90 STRIKE'S CASE.

to consider the insolvent's schedule, or his voluntary admission, as
sufficient evidence of the debt; or if the insolvent was dead, then

administrator surely would not be compelled, without being a party, to act as defend-
ant on the trial of the issue. However, in all cases where a claim depends on a
single fact, or facts, strongly litigated, and of difficult investigation, the Chancellor
conceives, that in some manner an issue ought to be tried. For instance, a bond is
exhibited with an affidavit of no payment, &c.; payment is alleged; but no receipt
is produced; or if a receipt be produced, there is an allegation of forgery. In such
a case, an issue may be sent out to be tried between the claimant and the party
alleging; if the said party chooses to be considered as plaintiff on the trial of the
issue.

In the present case, the claimant has filed an account with an affirmation of the
truth of the account. The person taking the affirmation has not certified the affirm-
ant to be a Quaker, Menonist, Tunker, Nicolite, or other person, entitled by law to
have his affirmation to be on a footing with an affidavit by a common person. Of
course, the affirmation is to stand for nothing.

The petitioner, Benjamin Morgan, has supposed the objection to his claim is, that
his account is not regularly stated. He is mistaken. The objection is, that he has
no proofs or vouchers to establish any claim against the deceased. He claims, as the
representative of a partner with the deceased. He charges the deceased with all
goods sent to him, and gives no credit, unless for remittances in money, or other
things. The balance he considers as the sum to him due; or if he and the deceased
were partners, he considers himself entitled to one half of the balance. His account
resembles little a partnership account. A and B are partners. A sends £ 10,000
worth of goods to B, who remits to him £8,000. Can it be supposed, that merely
from this, B owes £2,000 to the partnership; and of course owes £ 1,000 to B?
No! The charges of the store are to be taken into the account. There may be losses
of the articles, or they may have been sold for less than was expected; or they may
have been sold for a great profit. In fact B was only to credit the company with the
sale of the articles, and to charge every expense of storekeeping; and if there was
a balance in favour of the partnership, that is to say, if, after deducting all expenses
the sale of the goods amounted to not more than £ 10,000, it is impossible that B
shall be in debt to A.

The claimant, Morgan, has, by his petition, requested the Chancellor, to instruct the
auditor with respect to the mode of stating the account. What can the Chancellor
do more, if he shall direct the auditor, than order him to state the account, as other
accounts are stated ? The auditor's objection to the account, was not merely as to
the mode. The auditor was of opinion, that an account charging the goods sent to
Sluby, and crediting him only with what he sent to Morgan, could not possibly be a
just statement of a partnership account.

Morgan, by his petition, requests an order for the production of books in general.
Perhaps the law, usage, or practice of this court, respecting the production of books,
is less understood, in general, than any part of the jurisdiction of this court. The
power of ordering books, has ever, as it ought to be, been exercised with great cau-
tion. No instance can be shewn, where a man has been considered as entitled to
the production of private books, in which he has not an interest. And in all cases
where books have been ordered to be produced, the particular books have been speci-
fied; and the court has been first satisfied of the necessity of producing them. But,
in no instance has a man, who is not a party to a suit, been compelled to produce
private books. Is it conceivable, that Morgan, exhibiting a claim against Sluby, in
a summary way, without filing a bill against any person whatever, is entitled to an
order against every person whom he alleges to have in his possession certain books

 

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 90   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  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives