|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MCKIM v. ODOM. 431
The plaintiffs by their petition prayed leave so to amend their
bill as to allege, that the defendant Odom was then a
and to pray for an order of publication against him, The leave
was granted as prayed; and the bill amended accordingly, And
then on motion of the plaintiffs, on the 31st of October, 1829, to
order of publication was passed, in the usual form, warning the
defendant Odom to appear and answer on or before the 8th day of
March then next.
On the 13th of November, 1829, the commissioners made return
of their proceedings under the interlocutory decree of the 14th of
April, 1828, and in the testimony, so taken and returned, there is
evidence which goes to sustain some of the claims of the defendant
Law for disbursements as alleged in his answer.
After the 8th of March, 1830, the plaintiffs produced a certifi-
cate of the order of the 31st of October, having been published as
required. And the parties submitted to the Chancellor sundry
affidavits as to the residence of the defendant Odom.
13th March, 1830.—BLAND, Chancellor.—This case having
been again submitted on the part of the plaintiffs, with a prayer
for a decree to account; and with notes on the part of the defen-
dants objecting to the passing of any such decree, the proceedings
were read and considered.
On a careful consideration of all the affidavits filed since the
passing of the order of the 6th of July last, it very satisfactorily
appears, that the defendant John Odom always has been since the
institution of this suit; and must still be deemed a resident of the
state of Maryland; and therefore the order of publication treating
him as a person who resided beyond the jurisdiction of this court,
is erroneous in point of fact, and has been improvidently passed.
Whereupon it is Ordered, that the said order of the 31st of Octo-
ber last, be and the same is hereby rescinded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After which the death of the plaintiff Moore was suggested;
and on the 1st of October, 1830, the defendant Odom put in his
answer to this amended bill, which was, in substance, the same
as his answer to the first bill. To all these separate answers of
the defendants, the plaintiff put in a general replication, A com-
mission having been issued, was returned and filed on the 29th of
December, 1830, without any testimony having been taken under
it. After which the commissioners, on the 7th of March, 1830,
filed a certificate, in which they stated, that by an agreement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
