Volume 2 — Harris & Johnson's Maryland Reports

<p>Api-eai. from a decree of the Court of Chancery. The bill, filed, by the present appellee, stated that Brooke, the complainant, being possessed of and entitled to 80 shares of stock in the Bank of Columbia, and being desirous of disposing thereof, did, in May 1795, make application to Solomon, one of the defendants, who at that time acted as broker in Baltimore, to sell them for him. That Solomon informed Brooke be had a commission to purchase shares in the Bank of Columbia for a gentleman in Philadelphia, and that he would, and did purchase the shares of Brooke, for which Solomon agreed to give, and did give to bun, bis promissory notes for §2424, the one half payable in 26 days, and the other half payable in 28 days, and the shares were transferred by Brooke to Solomon. That Solomon, in 4 or 5 days after the date of the notes, became bankrupt, and on the 18th of May 1795, made and executed a deed of trust to Winchester, &c. the other defendants, of his effects and property, in trust, to be distributed among Ms creditors. That under and in virtue of the assignment, the assignees, Winchester, &c. lay claim to the 80 «hares, (Solomon not having disposed thereof for a fair ánd valuable consideration to any person whatever before Ms failure,) they alleging that the shares, or the nett pro-' ceeds thereof, must be applied equally among all the creditors of Solomon; although Brooke charges, that he hath an equitable lien on the shares, or the proceeds thereof, in preference to’imy other of the creditors of Solomon, the shares having been a fund created on the credit of the notes, and not having been since assigned to a purchaser for a valuable consideration, without notice of stcch equitable lien. That Brooke hath applied to the assignees, Winchester, &c-. who refuse to pay him the amount of the shares, or the value thereof, alleging that Brooke hath not any preference to the other creditors. Prayer, that the defendants bG compelled to pay to the complainant the said shares, or the value thereof, in preference of the other creditors of Solomon, and true and perfect answers make, &c. Also to account with and pay to the complainant the said shares, or the value and nett proceeds thereof, in satisfaction of the notes; and that the complainant may have such other remedy in the premises as the nature of his case doth or may require, &c.</p> <p>The answer of TP inchester, &c. so far as is material; stated, that when Solomon executed the deed of trust t& them, he was insolvent, and owed large sums of money ta several persons, far exceeding the value of all the property and effects which he was interested in, or had any title to. That these defendants had no notice, at the execution of the deed, that Solomon was indebted to the complainant, or any other person, for the 80 shares. That these defendants, all of whom are the creditors of Solomon, did, in July 1799, sell the shares for ,§1613. That they are willing to pay to the complainant Ms proportion of all monies which they received in virtue of the deed, and have always been willing to pay the same; but the complainant has refused to make any application therefor. They insist that the complainant has no lien, either equitable or legal, on the shares, or the money arising from the sales thereof, for the payment of the notes, as the shares were legally transferred to Solomon, and by him to these defendants. They say, that they have been informed by Solomon, and. believe the fact to be, that Solomon purchased the shares en his account, and for his own bene&t and use.</p> <p>The answer of Solomon is similar to the preceding answer. That at the time he executed the deed of trust, lie was indebted to a number of persons far exceeding the value of the property and effects to which he was entitled. That lie did not, inform the trastees, at the time he executed the deed, or at any time before, that he had not paid the complainant for the 80 shares. That after the execution of the deed lie did not interfere in the administration of his effects, but the same, since that period, ha* been under the entire and exclusive control of the trustees, That on the 18th of May 1795, and after the execution of the deed, he was arrested at. the suit of some of Ms creditor*, and confined in gaol in Palimiore; and that on the sue-seeding day the certificate of the transfer of the 80 shaves was received by the trustees, lie positively denies he ever told the complainant that he had a commission to purchase shares in the bank of Columbia, or io any other bank, tor a gentleman in Philadelphia, or any other place whatever, or that lie acted as a broker in making the con ■ tract with the complainant; but he expressly says, that ho purchased the shares on his own account, and for his own use and benefit. That the complainant, about 18 month5! after the purchase of the shaves, applied tc this defendant 10 sign an instrument of writing, stating that he had purchased the shares on commission, which he. refused to do.</p> <p>7vMiinony. That the trustees of Solomon sold at auction 80 shares in the Bank of Cohnnliu, to John Mun - mekuijsen, on the 23d of July 1799, for S2480, which, after deducting duties and commission, amounted to g£413„ That Charles Lowndes, in May or June 1799, requested IkimiiekutfMi to purchase for him 80 shares in the Bank of Columbia, who purchased the same fur him for 31 dollars a share, amounting to 82480. 'that the slaves had been previously held by Lowndes in (rust for the trustee-! of Solomon. That the dividends had been paid to the trustees. That after the sale to Murmiclatymi, for the benefit of Lowndes, the shares were transferred to Lowndes. By the Auditors statement, the defendants are charged with the nett amount of the sales of the 80 shares at auction, 82413 00</p> <p>Also with dividends received, and interest •feereon tothe32d of July 1799, 1184 14 i597 34</p> <p>They were credited with 10 dollars paid on each of the, shares, to complete the payment j due to the bank on the shares; and also credited with the dividends and interest arising thereon'as charged, £,99</p> <p>Balance due to complainant, £2697 85</p> <p>Hanson, Chancellor, (24th of March 1803,) being of opinion that the complainant was entitled to payment of two notes, given to him by the defendant, Solomon, on account of eighty shares of Columbia bank stock, transferred by the complainant to Solomon, out of the nett proceeds arising from the sale of the bank stock, so far as the same would extend, in preference to the other credi • tors of Solomon — Decreed, that the defendants, Winchester, &c. pay to the complainant the sum of g2697 85 cents, the same being the amount of the dividends and nett proceeds of three fourth parts of the sales of the eighty bank shares, according to the statement thereof made by the auditor of this court, together with interest, till paid, from the service of this decree. That the complainant and defendants sustain the costs by them respectively expended in the prosecution and defence of this suit.</p> <p>The chancellor does-not conceive that interest can be allowed, as proposed by the counsel, viz. from the 22d of July 1799 to the 24th of hi arch 1803. If it were allowed it must either be charged to the trustees, or must come out of the estate of the insolvent, to the prejudice of other creditors. The latter would be surely unreasonable, when it does not appear that the trustees have received interest. From this decree the defendants, Winchester, &c. appealed to this court,</p> <p>The cause was argued before Chase, C!i. J. Tilghman, Polk, Buchanan, Nicholson and Gantt, J.</p>

<p>A Faro Table set up in a house, not a dwelling-house, out-house, or place occupied by a tavern-keeper, retailer, fee. is not an offence under the act of 1797, ch. 130, which directs that “no Fa-' - ro Table,” fee* “shall be set up, kept or maintained in any dwelling-house, outhouse, or place occupied by any tavern keeper, re- ; tailei,” fee.</p> <p>Whether or not ; the court can refuse to permit the . counsel in a cri>ni« nal case from arguing to the jury against the court’s construction of an act of assembly, after the court had been called upon to give a construction to the act?</p>

In this case a writ of fieri facias issued on the 7th of .April 1806, on a judgment rendered in the late general yourt, at October term 1805, returnable to this court in dune last.

The bill of complaint of Colegate, the present appellee, filed the 10th of November 1800, stated, that one Kingsmore, in 1797, purchased of Lynch, the appellant, a tract of land for a large sum of money, to be paid by instalments; that the first instalment amounted to ¡61200, and was intended, in a great measure, to be paid out of the first crop on the land, and by the sale of wood; that Lynch declared that the. wood on the land would nearly pay for the land, and it was…

This was an action of debt brought the 8th of April 1801, in the names of the defendants in .error, for the use of A. Storey, on a writing obligatory bearing dale the 23d of January 1799, executed by Thomas Yates and Archibald Campbell, with David Stewart and the plaintiff in error, their sureties, to The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, (the defendants in error,) in the the penal sum of BSD,000 current money, reciting-, that “whéreas the above bound Thomas Yates and…

Tha bill was filed by the present appellee, (the complainant in the court of chancery,) on the 9th of July 1792, against Frederick Haffner, who died without answering the bill, and a bill of revivor was afterwards in May 1796, filed against his sons and devisees, the present appellants.

An action of dower was brought by the present appellant, who was the wife of Darile Keefer, deceased, “for the third part of 50 acres of land, -with the appurtenances, lying and being in Frederick county, consisting of part of a tract of land called Ohio, and pai-t of a tract of land called Wertimburgh, which she claims as her dower of the endowment of the said Bar-tie Keefer, her late husband,” &c. The defendant pleaded, 1st. That Bartle Keefer was not seized, &c. And 2d.…

The bill, filed by the present appellees in 1801, stated that Richard Robinson, being seized in fee of several tracts of land, on the 1st of May 1778, borrowed JÜ170 of the then current money, of R. T. B. Worthington, whose executors and representatives the appellants are, and executed a mortgage of his said lands, and sundry slaves, &c. for the payment of the said sum of money, with interest thereon, on the 1st of September then next ensuing.

The bill of the complainant, (the now appellee,) stated, that in September 1797, he purchased a part of a tract of land, lying in Prince George’s county, called Sloney Harbour, containing 163 acres, from a certain Benonill. Wade, at the price of £5 per acre; and on the 24th of December 1797, Wade gave him full and absolute possession thereof, and that he has ever since continued in possession.

<p>Where A, m conbirieratMUi of a debt due from him to B, assigns to lmn (not under the act of 1763, ek 23, $ 9, 10,) the borní of C, and O is or beet nirs in* solvent — On a bill by 1? asyain'-t A, to compel payment of the bond so a*= úgited— Decreed„ that the court oí* chancery has no jinis/iiclton; that if ihe assignment was an extinguish*» meat of the origi mx\ th bt, the oomnhwnam was nofi entithd to relief (ÍIÍrv at lav/ or in equity; and n the assignment was not an extin guishment oí the original debt, the fompiain&nt had his i\ in* dy at law on the origina! contiuefjtlieu bt» ÍU2T no eirouio" ill thebilitoinaho it necessary for him to resort to a court of ev«\wyv</p>

The bill filed by the present appellants, on the 15th of November 1797, was for a specific performance of the following agreement, executed on the 28(h of December 1777, by William Andrew, deceased, viz. iiEaltimore county, to wit.

The defendant in error in-ought an action of ejectment is. that court, for a tract of land called The Number of Two, situate in Washington county, within the reserve, of Conococheague Manor, and •containing 19?0 acres of land. The defendant, (the present plaintiff in errer,) took defence on warrant, and plots were made.

The appellee brought an action of ejectment for a tract of land called The Discovery, lying in Baltimore county, containing 520 acres and an half acre of land. The defendant, (now appellant,) took defence on warrant, and plots were returned. 1. First bill of exceptions. The plaintiff at the trial at May term 1804, read in evidence the patent of a tract of land called Brown’s ¡Adventure, granted to Thomas Brown on the 10th of November 1695,- for 1000 acres.

<p>A deed located on Che plots, and not counte rloeated by the opposite party may be read by the party locating" 5t, to '•how how it located, but when its validity comes in question if it is had. it is to liave no effect</p> <p>The chrffc of a court has no nu.thotity hy law to certify ft fact under seal; his duty is to grant exemplifications</p> <p>Parol evidence is not admitted to prove'that a tract of land included in a certificate of survey, never Was actually surveyed by the surveyor</p> <p>Parol evidence admitted with the consent of the parties, to prove the law. practice «nil usages, of the land office, before the revolution</p> <p>The efficient</p> <p>A person who takes oue a warrant of resui vey, without having a title to the original tract resurvey»* &d, acquires an equitable interest an tlu: vacant land ad led, when the composition money is paid; and Jus grant therefor will velat° to the flat.* of Vie certificate of re-mrvey, if it appeal’s that his certificate returned to the land office previous to flu*time \vhe-< a prior grant for the same land issued on a .tumor certificate of survey, made and compounded on after the cominsition money was paid upon ins certificate: and unless it was so returned, the prior grantee was a lair purchaser without notice of «ueh equitab'e interest, and his grant eann.it he overreached or defeated by relation</p> <p>The court refined to direct the jury, that if they were satisfi. *d from the evidence* that hy the rules of the land office the certificate of resurvey, under which the plaintiff claims, was liable to be vacated upon a caveat, though the immimotion money was paid thereon, if «f H, for whom the same was made, nad no estate in the original tract, and that upon the certificate being so vacated, the vacant land included therein, and also included by K U »n his certificate, if compounded on in time, might legally he granted to IS I), and being so granted, that the plaintiff* has no title under his grant to any part of the lamí jfo included in the grant to 55 1)</p> <p>acres land, giving part a tract,) without courses or referring to ano* ¿her deed, (not produced,) to ascertain the same, is nor legal -evidence to show -title, orto support the location thereof on the without rhe deed to which it refers</p> <p>Nor were certain facts circumstances admissible to prove the location of the 86 acres* or to show title thereto, or that the deed referred to, or some bond or contract for 'conveying the 86 acres by metes and bounds, •'kc, as located on the plots, had ever been executed</p> <p>Where the plaintiff has made but one location on the plots of the beginning of the land'for which the ejectment is broitgh’, and that is counterloeated, the jury cannot find a beginning for the plaintiff different from that located by him</p> <p>The plaintiff must make such locations of the land upon the plots ns will suit his ease The jury cannot find a location of their own, but must find someone of the plaintiff’s, if they find for him</p> <p>if the beginning of a tract of land is Tostar canno t be proved, then the beginning is to he found by reversing the ¿hies of the tract from the first known and established boundary</p>

nt, lying in Prince-George's county. The following ease was slated for the opinion of the court. A tract of land called Hunter's Polly, was surveyed on the 29th of November 1766, for William Hunter, as by the certificate thereof exhibited, and by which it was described as “beginning at a bounded Spanish oak, and running S. 7o° E. 84 ps. N. W. Í59 ps. then N. 7'4° E. 160 ps. thenN.

<p>• Appeal from the Court of Chancery. The appellant, by his bill of complaint tiled on the 24th of April 1800, stated that JHchard Wootton, on the 5th of August 1791, assigned to him, for a valuable consideration, a bond executed by Benjamin Burgess, (since, deceased,) and by Thomas Tongue, his security, dated the 21st of April 1789, conditioned for the payment of £301 12 9 current money. That suits were commenced on the bond in the general court, and a judgment was obtained against Tongue at May term 1793j but Burgess, dying before the judgment court, leave was given to issue a summons against Agnes Burgess, his administratrix. That the complainant was frequently applied to by B. Burgess, in his life-time, to resort to 'Thomas Lane for payment, against whom Burgess had a judgment, obtained in the name of i?iehard Harwood for his use, in the general court at October tent) 1799. B, Burgess, as the complainant understood, was much involved in debt, and alleging that he wished to pay by this judgment, the complainant was induced so far to comply with his request as to go to Lane, and to put himself to some, inconvenience, expense and trouble, to receive tobacco and. cash, to be applied towards payment of his claim against Burgess. That the complainant received a letter from Burgess, dated the lGth of October 1792, requesting him to meet at the house or Bane on the Thursday then next, to settle. That the complainant accordingly niet, and received from Burgess, which he had received from. Lane, and paid to the complainant, 1637 lbs. of tobacco, at 35s per hundred, and £H 6 1- cash, which was by mistake, calculated to make together the sum of 04 16 6,-for which he gave Burgess, a receipt, dated the 23d of October 1792, and for which sum Burgess also gave a receipt to Lane. That the complainant, on his return home ou. the 25th of the same month, entered the payment.ou hid day book as of that date, as it was his custom to do on his store books when he received money during his absence from home; but that it was entered for the correct amount of the money and tobacco, to wit, ¡£¡03 16 6. rIhat the. complainant, after discovering the mistake, and wishing, to furnish a statement of his account, sent his account .against Burgess and Tongue, in which he qliargecl them. with the sum due on the judgment, and credited them, under the date of the 25th of October 1792, with the quantity of tobacco and cash, under the heads of tobacco account and cash account, amounting together to the sum of £103 16 6; but he expressly alleges, that the sum for which he gave the receipt, and the sum which he gave credit for in the account rendered, were for the same tobacco and money, and were one and the same, except the misfake in the cal - culation, and that he never did receive both sums separately, nor any further sum in the month of October 1792, more than is credited in his account against Burgess and Tongue, that is to say, £103 16 6, from Burgess and 7-ongue, or any oije on their account or behalf. That Burgess. relied entirely on Lane for payment of this judgment to the amount of his judgment against Laney that he was. not in circumstances to make payment himself without difficulty, and that he never was in the habit of making several payments in so. short an interval, t.o the complainant’s knowledge. The complainant states, that another payment was made to him in February 1793, by the purchase of a negro man from. Lqne, for £79 18. 9; and that Burgess, in his life-time, never set, up or claimed a credit on the receipt, and on the account rendered also, as separate payments, but acquiesced in the balance, as staled by the complainant; and the complainant does 'not believe that he left any paper or memorandum specifying such a claim. That after the death of Burgess, which happened before December 1793, he received from his widow'; 'Ltgnes Burgess, (now Bgries Cooke, the defendant,) on the 1.0th of. December 1793, as appears by her account, the sum of £51, by the purchase of a negro boy at a public saie. of her intestate’s property,, which was done by him to accommodate the administratrix. The complainant w>as applied.' to at the sale to consent to the property being sold on a credit, which he agreed to for the benefit and. convenience of. the administratrix. That he afterwards, on the 25th of March 1795, received from Tongue, the security, the sum of £37 9 0, and from Lane, in August 1795, the further sum of £153 7 2. The complainant admits that the several sums amounted together to £9 13 8 more than the balance due on the judgment against Lane, out of which the complainant was to be paid., but he alleges that they were not all received by him on account thereof, but that lie had ®rder from Bishop Claggett to collect and receive from Agnes Burgess a sum of money due on a judgment to Claggett, ou which accoun;, he also received afterwards from Charles Cooke, (who intermarried with flgnes Burgess,) tobacco and money to the amount of £30, 4 0, as appears by an account exhibited, by which a balance appears to have been due from the complainant of £1 10 5-|, ivhich he has been and still is ready to pay. That after the intermarriage of A. Burgess with Cooke, the personal estate of /?. Burgess, being insufficient for the payment of his debts, and Thomas Tillare! having- a claim against the estate, they put into his possession the papers belonging to the estate, with a view to his discovering any debt that inight be due thereto, and the complainant received from Tillará a letter dated tlie 29th of October 1795, stating that a balance was still due from the complainant on the sum received for Lane’s judgment of £20, and desiring payment thereofj but the complainant not admiliing the sum to be due, refused to pay the same, and afterwards a suit was instituted in the general court by Cooke, and Agnes his wife, against the complainant, for money had and received, in order to recover bade the sum alleged by them to be overpaid. That Cooke and wife rendered to the complainant an account made out by Tillará-, the charges in which account of £103 16 6, £79 18 9, £50 5 0, £37 9 0, and £153 7 3, are the same as those above admitted by the complainant, but he expressly alleges that the charge of £15 5 6, charged by them in the account, was for a hogshead of tobacco received by him on a judgment by A. %• B, Contee against B. Burgess; and that, the charges in their account of £104 16 6, and, £103 16 6, aré for one and the same payment in the manner above stated. That while the suit against him -was depending, the papers of the plaintiffs, at law were by their counsel delivered to the counsel of the complainant, (the defendant in the suit,) to examine, and were by him given to A. Contee, who took a copy of the account, and returned all the papers to the plaintiffs’ counsel. The complainant expressly declares, that he delivered to bis counsel a receipt which he, lite complainant, had obtained from Barbara Lane, one of the executors of T. Liane, which was a receipt from B. Burgess to T. Lane for the said sum of £104 16 6, or near that sum, for which the complainant had given to B, Burgess a receipt dated the 23d of O.ctober 1702. That tlie complainant’s counsel, TFilliam Cooke, Esquire, left the court before the expiration of October term 1799, and (before the complainant saw him that term,) engaged other counsel, to wit, William Kilty, Es-r quire, and put the papers, into his hands, informing him that some of them belonged to the plaintiffs; and the complainant is informed and believes, that the counsel for the-plaintiffs, John T. Mason, Esquire, had access to the papers in the hands of William Kilty, Esquire,, and took therefrom such as he alleged to belong to his client. But at the trial court the receipt for ¿0104 16 6, ornear that sum, was not to be found, nor the account drawn off by. 'Filiald-, on which Mr. Blasón, on the trial, declined at first to act as counsel, but employed another attorney, intending to give testimony as to the papers; but the coni: plain.ant not knowing what was become of the papers, and, wishing for nothing more than a,fair trial, admitted that such papers had existed, to wit, a receipt from him to JL Burgess, and also from B. Burgess to T. Lane, for :Gi04 16 6, ornear that sum, dated the 2Sd of October 1792?, and an account drawn off by Tillará. That at the trial the deposition of Barbara Lane, taken by consent, was read,,, in which sh.e stated.that the complainant had procured thq last mentioned, receipt from her, the purport of which she did not know, and that the same had not been returned, and that that circumstance, and the loss of the, other papers, was artfully and unjustly made use of in argument to injure the complainant’s character, and to.influence the determination of the jury The complainant solemnly declares that lie did not wish or design, n.or did he know that, any of the papers were missing or lost before he came to the trial court, October term 1799, and when be was in-, formed the papers were wanting, he admitted of such papers having existed, lie was at court several days, and at length was so much indisposed, that he left the court, and was informed the trial came on next day when he was, absent. The complainant is informed that Tillará was ex-, amined as an evidence for the plaintiffs, having declared, when examined on the voir dire, that he was not interested in the etentof the suit, although he declared in discourse of his testimony that he had a claim on the estate of Burgess, and had obtained an order to receive what might bq due from the complainant in payment thereof, which appears by bis letter to the complainant of the 29th of Ge - tober 1795. That evidence was also given at the trial of the above mentioned payments in tobacco and money, which Were never made, in discharge of the judgment by Bishop Claggett, and of the tobacco due to ./?. 4’ B. Cantee oii judgment, which the complainant had no means of proving, the application thereof resting solely in the knowledge of the plaintiffs; and that a verdict on the trial, was given in favour of the plaintiffs for the sum of £203 4 6 current money damages, and $15 and 1324 lbs', of tobacco, costs. The complainant states, that he is well convinced that the claim aforesaid would never have been brought against him if B. Burgess had lived, for he believes, that so far from there being any account or papers left by him to prove the justness of the claim, his books and papers, if produced, would show that no such claim existed, and that the judgment has been unjustly recovered. Braver for an injunction, and relief, &c. The accounts and judgments referred to in the bill were all exhibited. The chancellor granted an injunction agreeably to the prayer of the complainant. The answer of Jlsnes^ Cooks, smtí^liarles Cooke, her husband, against wlram^usT wife Agnes, the bill was filed, having since died;) admitted the bond executed by B. Burgess, &c. That in discharge of the bond, on the 15th of April 1792, there was paid in tobacco, valued at 32s 6d pr. cwt. the price agreed on, and including the cask, the sum of £15 5 G, and on the 23d of October 1792, by B. Burgess, the sum of £104 16 6, for which he obtained the receipt of the complainant. That Lane was indebted to Burgess, and that Lane, at the request of Burgess, on the 25th of the same month and year, in discharge of the claim, paid in money and tobacco the sum of £103 16 6; that Lane also paid on the 25th of February 1793, the sura of £79 18 9, leaving a balance due on the 10th of December following in favour of the complainant, and including interest, the sum of £74 15 8, That after the death of B. Burgess, and before she obtained a true knowledge of the transaction, and had ascertained the sum due, the following payments were made, to wit, £50 5 0 for a negro boy sold to the com- " plaioant on the 10th of December 1793, £37 9 0 paid him on the 25th of March 1795, and ¿6153 7 3 on the 29th of August 1795, and which payments she afterwards discovered greatly exceeded the balance due the complainant from her deceased husband. That she knows no other claim of the complainant on Burgess’s estate, either in his own right, or as the assignee of any other of his creditors, and that the different payments were made in discharge of the above mentioned debt; that the complainant, when it was discovered he liad been overpaid, did not refuse to refund on the ground that he had other claims, but because be alleged that he had not received the two sums of ¿gl03 16 6 and J? 104 16 6; that the defendant, to obtain back the money which had been unjustly paid, was obliged to bring suit in her name, and in the name of Charles Coolie her husband, and at October term 1799, by the verdict of a .juiy, obtained a judgment for the sum of ¿6203 4 6, that being the sum, including interest, which had been overpaid and exceeding any just claim of the complainant. That she is informed that any defence the complainant had against her demand, either because he was charged with more money than received, or that the money was tobe applied to other claims due him in any capacity whatever, »wpre^subjects for the decision of the court and jury, and the''pefendant, to support her claim there, -was obliged to resort to disinterested évidence, according to the rules of law; that the complainant had there every advantage the law recognizes of objecting to evidence, and cannot here, because he alleges improper evidence was received, defeat the effect of the verdict. She knows of no other claim by the complainant against her husband’s estate; to which he had a rigid to apply any of the payments; she trusts that a court of equity will not, after an administratrix had paid monies supposing them due, when it is discovered they were not due, and when a verdict and judgment are obtained for the same to be refunded, prevent her from obtaining the benefit of such verdict and judgment. A general replication was entered to the answer; and the injunction, on the motion of the defendant, -was dissolved by the chancellor on the 15th of February 1803. A commission issued, under which testimony was taken, and the accounts between the parties were stated by the auditor.</p> <p>The testimony taken was that of David Weems, who deposed that Charles Coolie, who married tire-widow of B. Burgess, before the institution of the suit by him and wife against Coniec, caine to the deponent and asked him to assist him in stating an account against Contee, but before they began to state the account, he related some circumstances in this manner, that they bad Contee's receipt for ¿3104 odd shillings, anil also Canter’s account, wherein there was a sum credited of about 20 shillings less than the receipt expressed, two days after the date of the receipt, which two sums he said were but one payment, agreeably to the information he had received from his wife. From that information the deponent refused to have any thing to do with it-, or any iiand in stating the account. In the course of conversation with Cooke, he objected to a sum cisarged in the account by Contee for commission; that on his account against Contee the balance was over ¿£15, but he would take 40 dollar's, and give a full discharge for the same.</p> <p>The case being argued by the counsel concerned,</p> <p>Hanson, Chancellor, at .Tune term 1804, by his decree states, that “it appears to him that the application of the complainant in effect is, that the chancellor act as a tribunal of appeal from the verdict of a jury. There is stated no surprize on the complainant, whilst defendant at law; no discovery of testimony since the trial at law. There is no sufficient proof of fraud. As to that part of the deposition which lias been considered as evidence of fraud, there is the answer of a defendant denying it; and the established principle of equity, respecting answers which defendants are compellable’to give, is well known.” Decreed, that the bill of the complainant be dismissed, but without costs. From this decree the complainant appealed to this court.</p>

This was á special action of assumpsit upon a special guarantee for goods sold ánd delivered to JÍackét arid Grant, brought by the appellees, (the plairitiffs in the court below,) against the appellant. The declaration contained the following counts! 1.

■ Appeal from a decree of the court of chancery dismissing the bill of complaint. The material facts were these. —The complainant Rachel, (one of the appellants,) whilst she was sole, on the 21st of September 1790, was seized in fee. of the tracts of land called Rich Neck and Howard’s Timber Neck. A marriage settlement took place between the complainants, on the 21st of September 1790, and Lyde Goodioin was appointed trustee.

The bill, filed by the complainant, Edward Norwood, (now Appellee,) on the Slst of July 1800, stated, that he and the defendant Sarftnel Nonoood, (now Appellant,) being jointly indebted to I), Bulany, on the 20th of April 1784, gave to him their joint bond,' conditioned for the payment of ¿S314 sterling, an.d ¿6820 current money, with interest, That the defendant having omitted to. pay any part, suits were brought against each on the bond, and judgments obtained.

Moale, nine parts by Robert North 3Ioale, nine parts by Samuel 3'ioale, nine parts by Randle Hulse Moale, one part by Thomas 3Ioc.de, one part by Richard Curson, Junior, and one oilier part by Rebecca Russell. The defendant, (now appellant,) pleaded not guilty, and took defence on the plots made and returned in the cause.

The bill, filed on the 29th of July 1T99, by the appellants, as ' complainants* states, that Susanna Jones, mother of the complainants and defendant, being seized in fee tail of a tract of land in Saint Mary’s county, called The first awl second parts of Pountney’s Oversight, and desirous that the same, on her death, should descend to all her children equally, or be subject to her disposition by will, did by deed .of indenture, in due forrri of law, executed and…

The declaration contained a demise for a tract of land tailed Bremerton, containing 400 acres, and one for a tract called Linhasn’s Search, containing 38 acres, both lying in Jbme.-Jlrvndsl county. There was also a demise for an undivided moiety of the same land?, omitting the «quantity of acres contained in each tract. The defendant, (the ancestor of the appellees,) took general defence aiid issue was joined.

<p>Appeal from the General Court. This was an action of Trover, brought by the appellee. The plaintiff, at. the trial at May term, 1805, read in evidence a receipt from the defendant, and one Lemmon, since deceased, and whom the defendant has survived, in the following words; “Baltimore, 27th Nov. Received from Mr. Robert Sped-ding, for account of Mr. William S. Bond, eleven hundred and thirty bushels of corn.</p> <p>Lemmon Levering.'’</p> <p>He also gave in evidence, by the testimony of Robert, Speeding, the person by whom the corn in the receipt mentioned was. delivered, that the delivery was made the 27th of November 1798, that the corn was the property of William S. Bond, the plaintiff’s intestate, by whom it ■ was delivered to the witness, to be sold for the use of Bond | but without any orders or authority to place, it in the hands of any other person for sale, in case he gould not dispose of it himself. That not being able to sell the corn, lie placed it in the warehouse of, Lemmon Levering, who were in the habit of receiving produce on storage, but made no particular agreement with them relative to the, amount of storage to be paid, and gave them no orders or authority to sell or dispose of the corn. lie also gave in evidence, that within g, few days after the date of the receipt, and soipe time in the month of November or Re^ cember 1,798, Bond sent a person to demand, the corn from Lemmon fy Levering, in his name, who made the demand accordingly, and informed Lemmon %■ Levering that; be was ready to.pay the. storage, as soon as the corn should be delivered. But that Lemmon S,~ Levering refused to deliver it, declaring that, they would retain it for the payr spent of a debt, due them by Bond. The defendant then read in evidence an account, which was admitted in evb dence by the plaintiff, for sundry articles sold and delivered by Lemmon fy levering to Bond and one Mrs, in ■which account the corn is credited, and leaving a balance due from Bond Mrs, to Lemmon ’<$- Levering, oil ¿613 9 3. He also gave in evidence, that Mrs, in the account mentioned, had departed this life before the time of delivering the corn, and that Bond was then indebted to gemmon $■ fevering in the sum of ¿2917 13 4, as by the. account stated. The, defendant then prayed the opinion of the court, and their direction to the jury, that if they shall be of opinion, from the evidence, and all the circumstances in proof, that the corn was delivered to Lemmon Levering, to be applied by them to the credit of Bond, on account of the debt due from Slim to, them, or was placed in their hands with authority to, sell- it as factors., that then, in either of the said cases, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.</p>

The bill filed in 1790' charges, among other tilings, that the defendants, Stump ‘ and Dallam, being seized in fee of a tract of land situate in Harford county, sold a part thereof, (describing it,) to the other defendant, Patrick, and gave him a bond for a conveyance thereof to him in fee. That Patrick, at the time of purchase, paid a considerable part of the purchase money, and gave his bond for payment of the residue.

<p>T his will cated in .1795, devi* < sed his lands to be eqiaily-áivWed between his -two. ne7>hews, W C. .and V Si to them .and their heirs forever; and in ease WC>di ,cd without lawful issue, theh he devised one half of the lands to hi? nephew GS, to him and his heirs iorever. Held, as to a moiety of the lartds devised to WC, that on his death without lawful issue, the estate tail became extinct —and the limitation Over to GS took effect, and one moi« ety of the lands vested in him in fee simple.</p> <p>The act of 17S6, oh 45, to direct descents, as to estates tall general» and for transmitting* the tenancy in tail to the issue of the tenant; is altered or ’changed, only, bj making the land descendible to all the children of the tenant m tail and then* respective is° sue indefinitely* : i [ ’</p>

The bill in this case was filed by the present appellant against Archibald Robinson, Abraham Jarrelt, aud the administrators of Ralph Bondi It stated that the' complainant had been sheriff and Collector of Harford coiirity, and that he appointed Robinson one of his deputies,- who gave two bonds, one as deputy sheriff and the other as deputy collector, cririditioned for the faithful performance of hi» duties; that in the bond as deputy sheriff Jarrelt was his surety, and in…

The bill stated, that Davis being seized of a valuable real property, and also- possessed of a considerable personal estate, consisting, among oilier tilings, of certain chattels real, and being also indebted to A motion to dissolve the injunction was made by the defendant, which being submitted, Hansost, Chancellor, stated, that the bill and answer were by him read and considered, and it appearing that the equity stated in the bill, on which the injunction was obtained, is…

The record in this case contained a bill of exceptions, tendered to the associate justices of the county court by the defendant, (die appellant,) and which was signed, but not sealed,, by the justices.

Amead from Frederick county court. This was an action of assumpsit, and the declaration contained two counts — * The Erst for one year’s service by the plaintiff, (now appellant,) as an overseer, in the year 1791, rendered the intestate of the defendant, (the appellee,) and the other a quantum meruit for serving the intestate as an overseer for one year.

In thi^ case the appellee petitioned for her freedom, and the following case was stated for the opinion of the county court.

The appellant exhibited to that court her petition for freedom against the ■appellee. 1.

<p>In an action of slander, the word* charged to have en spoken were, that "He the said J tworejalse, and wore to a lie',— innuendo, “mean* nig chat the said J* had eommitteif peiyurj; mat the said J, had taken ft false oath before a nmgisti ate” — held not to be action* able.</p> <p>N o words are ac« tionabie unless they impute a dime to the ptain* ufl* which subjects Jum to punish,*incut.</p> <p>\ The office of the innuendo is to ex® piaui doubtful words, where there is iinicur sufficient in the declaration to maintain the action; uu it the woids in themseives are not atUunab.e, tlmr meaning cannot be extendeu by the innuendo to make uiem action*’</p> <p>» If the words may he understood mu, suisonotcummai, colloquium in the iui.ouuctoiy part, t<> snow they worn spoken m a crum* nai sense, or they aio not actiouahie.</p> <p>To make the woid forsworn, siander, n must be introduced by a colloquium, setting ihrili sume judicial proceeding, iu which the paiiy sworn,</p>

&c. to which the general issue was pleaded* At the trial, the plaintiff offered in evidence, that in the year 18j)2, thede-J; fendant carried to the inspection house ai Lower Marlborough six hogsheads of tobacco, which grew on the farm of the plaintiff during the year 3802, while the defendant” acted as the overseer of the plaintiff; three of which hogs-1 heads were crop tobacco, one weighing, &c. three second, one weighing, &c. That the tobacco was inspected in thet name of…

Atonal from Baltimore County Court. Assumpsit by the appellee against the appellants. The declaration contained two counts. The_ general issue was pleaded; ami at the trial the plaintiff offered certain testimony in evidence. The defendants objected to +lio testimony being given to the jury in support of the issue joined on the second count jn the declaration,; but the county court.

Appeals from Prmec-George's County Court. They were two actions of debt on joint and several bonds, given to the appellant, as trustee appointed by the court of chancery for the sale of the veal estate of J. Evcrsfield, each by F. Bowie, with the appellee’s intestate, and J. Brown, his sureties,' each bond was conditioned for the payment of ¿619 5 0, The defendant, (now appellee,), in each case pleaded payment by his intestate, to which there was the general replication, and…

<p>B and J sold and delivered toHBa quantity of sugar, undo.* a parol afavement with J l, that J R, would pay for the sugar if H B did not. J K paid B and J for the sugar; and an ' action of assumpsit was brought in the names of ‘B ami .T fov the use of J IX — Held* that it could not be sustained.</p> <p>As a matter of ¡ practice, the evidence offered to i thejury. on which the opinion of the c-mrt is prayed, ought to he stated in the bill of exceptions- The court of appeals, however, will retain a bill of exceptions where the court below wa* called <m and did give a direction ro the jury, although no facts are itattd therein*</p>

In this case there was a procedendo from the late court of appeals, directing a new trial of an action of ejectment, (which had been tried in the general court at May term 1800,) for 50 acres of arable land, 10 acres of meadow, and 100 acres of woodland, being part of a tract of land called Hitts Forest, situate in Baltimore county. (See 1 Harr. 0? Johns. 14.) The defendant took defence for Cullen’s I¿oi, and Cullen’s Addition, on the plots made ’and returned.

Cross Appeals from a decree of the Court of Chan, eery. The complainant, (Reinicker,) filed his bill of complaint against the defendapt, (Smith,) stating that Thomas 'Franklin, being seized of a lot of ground in Baltimore, agreed to sell all his interest therein to the complaiuant for the consideration of £l 12 10 0, which agreement was reduced to writing, and is evidenced, by the bond of con. veyance exhibited, dated the 20th of March 1794.

At-veai. from a decree of tlie Court of Chancery. Bill filed in the name of Ihe state, at tbe instance and for the lase of Carrol! and MnccuHbin, Hanson, Chancellor, decided, that by the act of October’ 1780, eh. 45, “to sei/.e, confiscate and appropriate, all British property within this state,” and the act of the same session ch. 49, “to appoint commissioners to preserve confiscated British property,*’ the equthible interests of British subjects in lands were confiscated…

Appeal frotó a decree of the Court of Chancery. The bill, which was filed tíy the appellee against Williams, (the appellant,) and John Clarke, stated that William§ and Clarke entered into partnership under the name of Jóhn Clarks, Testimony was taken under commissions issued.for that purpose.

Aureal from a decree of the Orphans’Court of Harford county.

Thy object and nature of the bill is stated ip the decree. Kilty, Chancellor. (July term 1806.) The object of the bill, as stated therein, and in the arguments of the ■ counsel, is to set aside and annul the decree heretofore obtained by the defendant against the complainant, in this court in October 1801, on the ground of fraud practised by the defendant in the obtaining that decree.

A ppeal from a decree of the Court of Chancery. Held: as by the table of course? thereof on the plot filed; that the survey was made by a deputy of Calder named Jam.es Hall, who made out the certificate,as was common with Calder’s deputies ip the reserves, and that Calder did not himself make the same out; and the defendant believes the mistake exists on Calder’s books; that the entry…

■ Appear from a decree of the Court of Chancery. The bill filed by the appellees against the appellants, on the 16th of January 1795, stated that J-HUiam Parks, deceased, was seized ánd possessed of a tract of land in Ballimore county called Turkey Cock Alley, containing 50 acres, which by virtue of a special warrant,- was on the 10th of July 1754 resurveyed for him, and a certificate thereof re* turned into the land office, by which he caused to be added 102 acres of land…