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

688 DUVALL v. THE FARMERS' BANK.

the trial in the court of common law. This is a proceeding which
can only be regarded as one of the modes whereby a party may
obtain testimony to sustain his case; and therefore, as on all simi-
lar applications, the granting of which maybe attended with delay,
where the propriety of granting it does not sufficiently appear from
the nature of the case; or the documentary evidence, called for, is
not described in the proceedings of the suit in which the applica-
tion is made, the petition should be at least as specially descriptive
of the evidence and proof of facts, expected to be obtained from
the books and papers required, as in an affidavit, stating the nature
and materiality of the proof expected to be obtained from an
absent witness, without whose testimony, a party alleges, that he
cannot safely go to trial, and, therefore moves for a continuance of
his case in a court of common law. The cases are so strikingly
analogous, that the rules and principles, with few exceptions, ap-
plicable to one class of cases, may be well applied to the other, (e)
In this instance, the petition is entirely too indefinite and general.
Whereupon, it is Decreed, that, the cause shewn being deemed
sufficient, the decree of the 11th instant be rescinded; and the
petition be dismissed with costs to be taxed by the register.

(c) 1 Vern. 334; Jessup v. Duport, Barnar. 192; Steward v. The East India
Company, 9 Mod. 387; Smith v. Northumberland, 1 Cox, 363; Burton v. Neville,
2 Cox, 242; Oldham v. Carleton, 4 Bro. C.C. 88; Rougemont v. The Royal Ex-
change, &c. 7 Ves. 304; The Princess of Wales v. Liverpool, 1 Swan. 119; Jones
v. Lewis, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 438; Mendizabel v. Machado, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 553.


 

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 688   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