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 3, Page 13   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

CASES
W THE
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
JEREMIAH DUCKER,
vs. SEPTEMBER. TERM, 1651.
GEORGE G. BELT.
[CHANCERY PRACTICE.] .
THE complainant, the holder of a mortgage from the defendant, dated the 9th
of August, 1842, obtained a decree upon his bill filed on the 23d of May,
1847, against the mortgagor alone for a sale of the mortgaged property, and
became the purchaser thereof at the sale made on the 7th of August, 1847.
The Auditor, by his report of the 4th of December, 1847, applied (4483 85,
of the proceeds to complainant's mortgage, (1274 15 to an elder judgment
against the defendant, and (480 55 to W's judgment rendered in September,
1645, and the balance of $319 95 to the mortgagor. This report was con-
firmed on the 26th of July, 1848. On the 10th of September following, K., the
holder of a mortgage on the same property, dated the 33d of January, 1813,
filed his petition stating the existence of his mortgage and claiming; the sur-
plus proceeds after payment of liens prior to his own, and praying that the order
ratifying the Auditor's report might be rescinded. The 9th of October was
fixed by order of the court for hearing this petition upon notice to the parties
interested. E., the assignee of W's judgment, answered this petition, deny-
ing knowledge of the mortgage and requiring proof of the allegations thereof.
The petitioner was not present on the day fixed for the hearing, no proof had
been taken by him, and no excuse offered for his failure so to do. The peti-
tion was then dismissed by an order passed on the 10th of October, 1849.
Afterwards on the 5th of November, 1849, K. filed a second petition, alleging
that he had no notice of the answer of E. to big former petition, and, there-
fore, did not know what erideoce he would be required to produce, and pray-
ing that he might be allowed now to produce evidence in support of bis claim.
HELD—
VOL. Ill—2

  		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 3, Page 13   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  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives