clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Bland's Reports, Chancery Court 1809-1832
Volume 201, Volume 3, Page 559   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
NEALE v. HAGTHROP. 559
possession of a part of the premises mentioned in the bill of com-
plaint; and says, that his testator purchased of a certain
Young and Francis Young, on the 10th of September, 1804, for a
valuable consideration, and without notice of any claim of the said
complainant or the heirs of the said Anthony Hook.
On the 19th of July, 1822, the defendant King put in his
answer, in which he says, that he, on the 29th of March, 1819,
took a lease from John Cator for a lot of ground fronting on Good-
man street thirty feet; and that he is ignorant of, and entirely un-
acquainted with any of the matters or things set forth in the bill of
complaint.
The defendant Chittenden put in his answer, on the 26th of
November, 1822, which, it was agreed by the plaintiff, should be
received without oath, in which he says, that he held the posses-
sion of a lot of ground on Alice-Anna street, which John Hook, as
administrator of Anthony Hook, had sold and conveyed to Patrick
Bennett, from whom it was passed by several mesne conveyances
to this defendant, all of which conveyances he is ready to produce
and prove as this court shall direct; that this defendant, and those
under whom he claims are bona fide purchasers for a valuable con-
sideration, without notice of any claim of the plaintiff or the heirs
and representatives of the said Anthony Hook.
The defendant Weaver, on the 16th of January, 1823, put in his
answer, which was also, with the consent of the plaintiff, received
without oath, in which he says, that in the year 1819, he obtained a
lease of a part of the ten acre lot from the defendant McMechen;
and that he is a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration,
and without notice of any claim of the plaintiff or of the heirs and
representatives of Anthony Hook, deceased.
On the 7th of February, 1823, on the petition of the plaintiff,
leave was granted so to amend the bill as to make James Hook a
defendant, who on the same day put in his answer, which he styles
his separate answer 'to the amended bill of complaint of James
Neale, ' &c.; and says that he is the only child and heir at law of
John Hook; but as to all the other matters set forth in the bill he is
ignorant, and therefore leaves the plaintiff to prove the same.
After which, on the 28th of July, 1824, the plaintiff, with the
leave of the court, filed a supplemental bill; the only material dif-
ference between which and the original bill is, that the supplemental
bill, as it is called, says, 'that the said Anthony Hook left, at his
death, four children; the said John Hook, who administered upon


 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Bland's Reports, Chancery Court 1809-1832
Volume 201, Volume 3, Page 559   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives