|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
622 THE CAPE SABLE COMPANY'S CASE.
and he averred, that the judgments of Slye, Love, and the Barbers,
never had been satisfied, and that they had been regularly assigned
to the defendant Carroll for a valuable consideration. The defen-
dant Robert Oliver, by his answer, states and avers, that the
amount for which he had obtained judgments against The Cape
Sable Company in Anne Arundel County Court was for money lent
and actually applied to the use of that body politic; that the deci-
sions of this court of the 21st of April, 1823, and the 7th of May,
1824, so vitally attacked that judgment as perfectly to nullify it;
and that therefore, and with a view, in the most effectual manner,
to correct and remove those great informalities which had been
pointed out, and were considered as so fatal to that judgment, the
suit was instituted and a judgment obtained in Baltimore County
Court, on the 26th of May, 1824, for the same debt, &c. as alleged
by the plaintiff. This defendant denies all fraud, &c. The defen-
dant Carroll, in his answer states, that he was applied to by the
defendant Harper and others for the loan of money to relieve the
embarrassments of The Cape Sable Company; and that he, after
some negotiation, agreed to lend his money, and took as a secu-
rity for the money so lent to that body politic an assignment of the
judgments of Slye, Love, and the Barbers, which were then and
yet remain in full force, and wholly unsatisfied; and that he caused
writs of fieri facias to be issued on them, as stated in the bill; that
as to the judgments which appear to have been confessed in actions
of debt on the judgments originally of Slye, Love, and the Barbers,
in Baltimore County Court on the 4th of June, 1824, they were
obtained in consequence of a misundertanding of his attorney,
and because he was ignorant, that executions had previously issued
to Anne Arundel County; but those judgments will be vacated, or
otherwise disposed of so as to keep them harmless, in such manner
as the Baltimore County Court may, at its next term, direct. This
defendant alleges, that he is ignorant of the other matters stated in
the bill; and he denies all fraud, &c.
Upon these answers the case was brought before the court on a
motion to dissolve the injunction.
10th November, 1824. —BLAND, Chancellor. —The motion to
dissolve the injunction standing ready for hearing, and the solici-
tors of the parties hating been fully heard, the proceedings were
read and considered.
This ease has been gathered into the shape in which it is now
presented to the court in three separate parcels, commenced at
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
