| Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 210 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
210 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. there ia nothing in the evidence of Mr. Bradley, when he speaks of the conversation between himself and Mr. Carter, which can lead us to suppose that the latter objected to the right of the arbitrators to go behind the settlement, because he had ascer- tained, or apprehended, that the result of a re-examination of the questions then adjusted would be disadvantageous to him. On the contrary, Mr. Bradley distinctly states, that he declined to let Carter know the result of the arbitration, though ho re- quested him to do so. Why Mr. Carter asked the witness if they had gone into the question of the paternal succession it is impossible to ascertain with certainty. We may speculate upon this subject as we please, but whatever his motive was, it seems to me, a constrained and unnatural conjecture to attribute his remark, that the arbitrators had no right to examine into that question to a conviction, or oven an apprehension, that he could suffer by their doing so. If, as the argument assumes, Carter consented by the sub- mission that the accounts upon which the settlement of 1836 was made should be raveled into because he had reason to think a re-examination would result favorably to him, why should he, before the result was known, protest against the power of the arbitrators to do so ? There is nothing to show that, from the period of the submission to the date of his conversation with Mr. Bradley, any thing had come to his knowledge in reference to the probable result of a reinvestigation of the old settlement, which would induce him to retract his consent to such reinvesti- gation after he had once consented to it. There is, moreover, no reason, that I can conceive, why the settlement of 1836 should be brought in question between these parties, and the matters which were then supposed, all round, to be finally adjusted, laid before these arbitrators for their ex- amination. The settlement was certainly made under circum- stances calculated to remove all doubt or suspicion of its perfect fairness. The amount ascertained by it to be due from the late Mr. Calvert to his daughters, was determined by an eminent legal gentleman, acting by the appointment of, and as the mutual |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
| Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 210 View pdf image (33K) |
|
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.
Maryland State Archives