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, Volume 2, Page 200   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

200 WINDER v. DIFFENDERFFER.

who bad paid the whole debt, to take the place of the government;
and thus secure to himself the high, and overruling preference to

and had in fact paid. Prayer, that the mill, &c. might be sold to reimburse the
plaintiff, Sec.

On the 12th of February, 1804, the infant heirs of James Cooper answered by their
guardian ad litem: and the trustee, Sherwood, also put in bis answer, by which they
admitted the truth of the allegations of the bill. Upon which the case was submit-
ted 5 and on the 18th of February, 1804, a decree was passed that the property be
sold, &c. After which the infant defendants, by William Atkinson, their guardian,
petitioned that the decree might be opened, and that they might have leave to amend
their answer.

1st March, 1804.—HANSON, Chancellor.—Not even an affidavit of the truth of the
matters stated in, or annexed to the petition. The Chancellor, therefore, cannot at
present comply with the prayer of the petition.

On the 2d of April, 1804, a similar petition, with an affidavit of the truth annexed,
was filed; and the plaintiff, Meluy, afterwards filed a counter petition, upon which
the case was again submitted.

1st May, 1804.—HANSON, Chancellor.—The Chancellor has considered the said
petitions. The former, although intended to prevent the execution of a decree, is
neither an application for rehearing a cause, nor a bill of review. It is a request
that a decree may be opened, and that another answer may be admitted, and fresh
proceedings be had. In fact it was an application to set aside a decree, regularly
passed on the bill, answers, and proof, without suggesting any error in judgment,
or discovery of facts; and that, too, is expected to be done without hearing the
other party or calling on him to answer. A similar application the Chancellor does
not recollect ever before to have received or heard of. If it should succeed, the
precedent thereby established, might render decrees of little value indeed; as a de-
fendant, against whom a decree should be passed, might obtain an order for annul-
ling the proceedings; or, at least, infant defendants might have that advantage.

When a decree is passed, the parties are no longer in court. Suppose the Chan-
cellor to pass an order for opening the decree, as is prayed, what are to be the sub-
sequent proceedings ? It may be said, the Chancellor is to act according to his dis-
cretion, to prescribe the time for putting in an answer by another guardian, &c. &c.
But under what law, usage, or practice, should he act ? On a bill of review, per-
mitted to be filed, or an order for rehearing, the practice is established. But the
present application, as has already been observed, is neither a bill of review nor a
petition for rehearing. In a word, it appears wholly unprecedented, as well as im-
proper.

Mr. Meluy, however, hearing of the application, has filed a petition against it.
Perhaps this petition may be considered as a voluntary answer to the petition of Mr.
and Miss Cooper by Mr. Atkinson, calling himself their guardian, Mr. Meluy has,
in his petition, made a proposition which appears reasonable, viz. to have an account
stated by the auditor.

And it is, therefore, adjudged and ordered, that the auditor of this court, on the
l5th day of June next, proceed to state an account between the deceased, father of
the petitioners, Thomas and Ann Cooper; provided the said Atkinson shall come
before the auditor for that purpose; and that the said trustee, appointed to sett the
said property, shall not proceed to a sale until further order,

The Chancellor thinks proper to declare, that he passes this order merely because
the said Meluy has, by his petition, offered to have the sale postponed, and to have an

 

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, Volume 2, Page 200   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