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
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 364   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

364 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
GEORGE W. MATTHEWS ET AL
vs. MARCH TERM, 1848.
WILLIAM D. MERRICK.
[PRACTICE IN CHANCERY.]
THE process of sutpoena scire facias is the proper and appropriate proceeding
to revive a decree which has abated by death, or where a female complain-
ant has married, or the decree has become dormant by lapse of time.
A promise to allow a defendant a credit upon a decree against him by which
he was induced to waive his right of appeal, rests upon a good and valid
consideration.
An unqualified offer by complainants to allow the defendant a credit upon a
decree in their favor, which offer was the result of negotiations previously
had between the parties to settle the matters in dispute, in a friendly manner,
cannot afterwards be withdrawn by them.
[The facts of this case are sufficiently stated in the Chancel-
lor's opinion.]
THE CHANCELLOR :
I do not think the objection taken to the form of the pro-
ceeding adopted in this case can be sustained.
The process of subpoena scire facias appears to be the proper
and appropriate proceeding to revive a decree which has abated
by death, or where a female complainant has married, or the
decree has become dormant by lapse of time. 1 Bland, 545;
3 Bland, 326.
Upon the merits of the case, however, there is certainly some
difficulty, though I am of opinion that to some extent at least
the merits are with the defendant, and that he is entitled to a
credit upon the decree.
It appears that two bills were filed in this court against the
defendant on the 2d of August, 1833. In one he was called
upon to account as the executor of Rose Matthews, and in the
other as administrator, de bonis non, of Luke F. Matthews,
and the parties, complainants for the most part, were the same.
Luke F. Matthews and Rose Matthews were the father and
mother of the complainants, and the defendant was their broth-
er-in-law, having married their sister.

  		clear space
clear space
white space

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 364   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  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives