|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
302 PRICE v. TYSON.
been no unreasonable delay, misrepresentation, or fraud practised
by any one to the prejudice of the plaintiff; and therefore, this
company cannot, from any thing now appearing, be any longer
restrained from proceeding with their work.
Whereupon it is Ordered, that the injunction heretofore granted
in this case, be, and the same is hereby annulled and dissolved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRICE v.. TYSON.
The nature of a bill of discovery.—A defendant in answering a bill of discovery
may set forth any pertinent matter in avoidance.—In general, no matter stated by
way of answer which affords such information as the bill calls for, or which may
be needful as a defence can be deemed impertinent.—Nor can any matter which
is pertinent to the case be deemed scandalous.—The legality of evidence, brought
out by a bill of discovery, must be determined by the court of common law for
whose use the discovery was made.
THIS bill was filed on the 8th of February, 1831, by William
Price, administrator of John Price, deceased, against Mary Tyson,
Isaac Tyson and .Moses Sheppard, administrators of Nathan Tyson,
deceased. The bill states, that in the year 1817, a suit which had
been previously instituted by the plaintiff's intestate, against the
intestate of the defendants, was transmitted from Baltimore to
Harford County Court; and was there, by an order of that court,
referred to arbitration; but no award having been made, it was in
1826, reinstated; that the defendants had pleaded in abatement
the death of the plaintiff before they had been summoned as de-
fendants, which plea was finally overruled by the Court of Appeals ;
that the object of the suit at law was to recover a large sum of
money due from the freight of a vessel chartered by the plaintiff's
intestate to the intestate of the defendants; that these defendants
pretending ignorance of any suit having been instituted against
their intestate, in his life-time, for the recovery of this debt, have
pleaded in bar thereof, that they had fully administered the estate
of their intestate without any knowledge of the plaintiff's claim,
or of the pendency of the suit at law; that the defendant Mary is
the widow, and the defendant Isaac is the brother or near relation
of their intestate; and both, being intimately acquainted with his
affairs, did know, that the controversy between the late John and
the late Nathan had been referred to arbitration, and had never
been settled; and that the defendants before the 10th of October,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
