| Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 400 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
400 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. in the proceedings to a certain other day long anterior to the date of the decree of said court, and as that decree does not provide for taking any further account against him, or direct any inquiry to be made in respect to his liability for subsequent rents and profits, nor is this court empowered to do anything more than to execute said decree, he insists that that decree is conclusive of the rights and liabilities of both parties arising out of the matters litigated in that suit, and he pleads said de- cree as a bar to any further account of rents and profits re- ceived or supposed to be received by defendant anterior to the date of the same. And that if any such relief could be award- ed to the present complainant, he has mistaken his remedy, and that he ought to have proceeded by supplemental bill in the former case. He admits he continued in possession of the mortgaged premises after the 19th of November, 1844, but for what space of time he is not able at this moment to state, but if he is now liable to account for such occupancy, he submits that he is entitled to review the decree of the Court of Appeals, and to correct the same, so far as may be necessary to do even handed justice to the parties. He then points out deductions of ground rent and taxes to be made from said rent of $400 per an- num charged against him by that decree, so as to reduce the clear annual rent to $200 per annum, and avers that the account di- rected to be stated by the Court of Appeals was so stated with- out due notice to him, and that his case was not prepared so as to show the clear net rent which he had received for the prem- ises, and that ho was thereby greatly aggrieved, and he submits that if the present complainant is permitted to review the said decree for any purpose, it will be so far opened as may be neces- sary to correct errors existing therein to the prejudice of this defendant. After this answer was filed, a motion was made to dissolve the injunction, upon the hearing of which the Chancellor deliv- ered the following opinion.] |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 400 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