|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
642 THE CAPE SABLE COMPANY'S CASE.
On the 20th of April, 1829, Philip G. Lechleitner, as a claimant
against the proceeds of sale in this case, by his petition, not on
oath, stated, that the sheriff O'Hara had, by a special contract,
agreed to accept as a compensation for his services a sum about
two-thirds less than his legal poundage fees. Whereupon he
prayed, that 0'Hara might be ordered to answer, and that the mat-
ter might be reheard. On the 21st of the same month this appli-
cation was dismissed with costs.
On the 25th of April, 1829, George Neilson, administrator of
James Neilson, deceased, Eli Balderson, Benjamin Welch and
Hugh Mullen, creditors, who had filed their claims against The
Cape Sable Company, under the decree, by their petition, not on
oath, stated, that no payment had then been made to O'Hara un-
der the order of the 15th December; that the time allowed by the
notice given, as directed by the decree, for creditors to bring in
their claims, expired on the 30th of December last; alter which
day, and before the passing of the order of the 15th of Decem-
ber, they had filed their claims; and, therefore, they had neither
in point of law or of fact, any notice of O'Hara's petition, or
any opportunity of controverting his claim; that O'Hara had
entered into a special contract to accept as a compensation for his
services, much less than his legal fees; and yet had, in his peti-
tion, suppressed all mention thereof; thereby leaving the court to
presume, that he was entitled to the full amount of his poundage
fees. Whereupon they prayed, that O'Hara might answer; and
that they might have such relief as seemed right, &c.
27th April, 1829. —BLAND, Chancellor. —Upon this petition I
must repeat what I have said on the petition of Philip G. Lechleit-
ner, that the order of the 5th of November last, placed it in the
power of all who had a right to oppose the claim of William
O'Hara to do so on the day appointed. The matter of the fore-
going petition, it is clear, might, then as now, have been offered
as a cause why O'Hara's claim should not be allowed; but it was
not then presented. This petition assigns no reason why this mat-
ter was not then introduced by the parties who might then have
done so. Whether this suit was then to be contemplated as a cre-
ditor's bill or not; or, in whatever light O'Hara's claim may be
considered, it is very clear, that it has been regularly put in issue,
tried and adjudicated upon between him and those with whom, if
at all, he contracted as is alleged, and of whom he had a right to
make the demand. On a creditor's bill the originally suing credi-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
