|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WALSH v. SMYTH. 19
however, and it is the true intent and meaning of this award, that
the said Robert Walsh shall not be compiled to execute the said
deed of conveyance until a perpetual injunction shall be granted
by the honourable, the Chancellor of Maryland, in a cause or
causes now depending in the High Court of Chancery, wherein
the said Robert Walsh is complainant, and seeks to be protected
against the effect of sundry judgments at law against the said
Robert Walsh, obtained on bonds executed by the said Robert
Walsh, to a certain Thomas Smyth, Jr. of the state of Georgia,
which bonds we find were given by the said Robert Walsh, as
agent of the said Casenave & Walker, of whom the said James
Walker was surviving partner.' Made and signed on the 17th of
April, 1816; and judgment rendered thereon on the 4th of May,
1816.
The petition further stated, that the petitioner, from the informa-
tion he has received, has good cause to believe, and does believe,
that a gross fraud was practised on the plaintiffs by the pretended
sale to them by Smyth and Lynch, of lands to which they had no
good or valid title, as is set forth in the bill; and that if an oppor-
tunity were given by a rehearing of the cause, and admitting him
as a party plaintiff thereto, he could and would obtain sufficient
and competent testimony to sustain the allegations of the plaintiffs
in the bill, on which the equity was founded which entitled them
to the injunction originally granted; and to satisfy the court that
it ought to be made perpetual.
Upon which the petitioner prayed, that the decree of the 6th of
September, 1830, might be rescinded, the case reinstated, and
the injunction heretofore granted revived and continued in fall
force until further order; that he might be made a party plaintiff
according to the provisions of the act of Assembly; that all fur-
ther proceedings at law, as heretofore enjoined, might be suspended
and stayed until further order; and that he might have such other
and further relief as the nature of his case required.
The petitioner by his supplemental petition stated, that at the
time the case was set down for hearing, Casenave had no counsel
In court; that the solicitor who had been employed by him died
many years since; and those solicitors whose names were marked
on the docket for the plaintiffs, appeared for and were the solicitors
of Walsh alone; and then goes on to state as before, in his original
petition, that the suit had not been revived against the representa-
tives of Casenave. And then as before, prayed to be admitted as a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
