|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SALMON v. CLAGETT. 181
The plaintiff excepted to the sufficiency of the answers of the
defendants; first, because they had not discovered and set forth
the number, nature, and kind of the personal property include! in
and conveyed by the mortgage. And in the next place, because
they neither denied, nor admitted the allegations of the bill, that
the personal property so mortgaged remained in the possession of
the defendants Elizabeth and Edmund, and was used for the
common benefit of themselves and the other defendants.
The defendants having given notice of their motion to dissolve
the injunction; the hearing of the exceptions to the answer, and
of the motion to dissolve were brought on and argued together.
8th November, 1828.—BLAND, Chancellor.—The motion to dis-
solve the injunction standing ready for hearing the solicitors of the
parties were heard and the proceedings read and considered.
The defendants by their answers, all admit the execution of the
mortgage, but they say, that it is utterly invalid, as regards the
personal estate; because it purports to be a pledge or Hen given
by an administratrix of personal property which she held only as
such; and could not lawfully mortgage for any such purpose.
But, supposing the mortgage to have been valid, in its origin;
then, they say, that certain claims and property were transferred
and delivered over to the plaintiff, from which he has, or might
have obtained full satisfaction of his claim; and therefore, that the
mortgage is satisfied; or, if it be neither wholly invalid, nor satis-
fied, then it has been released and discharged; because, by the
agreement of the 26th of May, 1828, the terms of the mortgage
contract have been so altered, to the prejudice of those of the mort-
gagors, who were the mere sureties of the defendant Thomas Cla-
gett, as to have annulled it altogether; and further, the defendant
Richard H. Clagett, in his answer, avers and relies upon the feet
as a defence, that he was an infant at the time the mortgage was
executed by him.
The defendants' motion to dissolve the injunction, being called
up to be heard, the plaintiff, on coming in to shew cause, pro-
posed, at the same time, to shew, as cause why the injunction
should not be dissolved, the validity of his exceptions; and to
have them considered and decided upon, together with the motion
to dissolve. The defendants objected to this course, on the
ground, that there was not, in every instance, nor in this, a NEC's
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
