|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WALSH v. SMYTH. 15
On a letter from the solicitor of Walsh asking a postponement, the
Chancellor on the 16th March, 1811, says, 'The Register is direct-
ed not to certify the dissolution of the injunction until further
order.' July term, 1820, petition filed, order for commission nisi
22d of March, 1821, when a commission issued to complainants'
commissioners.
The death of Richard Emory having been suggested on the 21st
of October, 1825, his executor Thomas L. Emory was made a party
defendant, who on the 15th of December, 1825, filed his answer, in
which he states, that he had no knowledge of the contract between
the plaintiffs and Smyth and Lynch; which he believes, however,
to have been in all respects fair; that the bond held by him had
been assigned to his testator for a valuable consideration; and that
no part of the judgment he had obtained on it had been paid.
On the 24th of December, 1825, an order of notice of motion
to dissolve the injunction in the usual terms was passed. On a
petition filed on the 16th of November, 1826, by the complainants,
it was Ordered, that a commission issue to the complainants' com-
missioners Thomas Russel, James B. Latimer, J. Spear Nicholas,
and Robert Wilson, Jr., unless the defendants name and strike on
or before the 27th of November, 1826. On the 28th of Decem-
ber, 1826, a commission was issued accordingly. A commission
was issued on the 17th of February, 1830, to take testimony on the
part of the plaintiffs, which was returned and filed on the 6th of
March, 1830. Jared Bull, the only witness examined, stated, that
in the year 1794, he went to Georgia as agent for the plaintiffs to
examine and enquire into the title, situation and quality of the
lands so purchased by them; that he could find no such warrants
for some of the lands as represented by the vendors; that some of
the lands were held by others under elder patents; and that other
parcels of the lands were within the Indian territory.
6th September, 1830.—BLAND, Chancellor.—This case standing
ready for hearing, and having been submitted on notes by the soli-
citors of the parties, the proceedings were read and considered.
It is clear, that the purchase of the lands, which was the consi-
deration of the several bonds, held by the defendants, must be
taken as one entire and indevisible contract; although the bonds
themselves are several, and have, for a valuable consideration, been
assigned to and are now held by several distinct assignees.
Consequently, if the consideration of those bonds is to be deemed
a valid support for any one, it must, in like manner, be taken as a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
