Volume 5 — Gill's Maryland Reports

The bill in this cause was filed on the 15th January, 1830, by Ann B. W. Hayes, and alleged that she, on or about the 9th December, 1824,… Held: or be continued under the control of this court in this suit, the accounts are to commence with the original formation of the partnership, and to be brought down through all its mutations, by any changes of the persons by whom it was constituted, unto its final dissolution by the decree of the 31st day of August, in the year 1841.

The bill in this cause was filed on the 14th June, 1841, by the appellee, and alleged that a certain Elizabeth Forbes was seized and possessed of considerable real and personal estate, and being about to be married, a deed or marital settlement was executed on the 8th June, 1807, between her intended husband of the first part, the said E. F. of the second part; a certain Thomas Marshall and John Forbes of the third part; and a certain James, John, (above named) James Forbes…

The bill in this cause was filed on the 2d November, 1843, by J. C. Smith, on behalf of himself and other creditors of Joseph Weast, and prayed a sale of his real estate for the payment of debts, in consequence of the insufficiency of personal estate for that purpose. A decree was passed for the sale on the 5th December, 1843; a sale was reported and ratified, and his creditors were notified to file their claims.

The will of Lewis JYeth, bearing date the 4th October, 1832, contains among others the following clauses, viz : Item. All the rest of my real estate I desire may be sold, and I hereby authorize and appoint Samuel Maynard to make sale thereof, upon such terms as be may approve of, and also to execute deeds for the same when the purchase money is paid.

The bill in this cause was filed on the 18th Dec., 1843, by the appellee, and alleges that in the year 1841, your complainant sold and conveyed by deed to a certain Thomas Smoot, for, &c., a certain mill, and mill-seat.

The bill in this cause was filed by the appellee on the 1st October, 1845, and alleged that about the year 1820 Jacob Snyder was appointed by the Orphans court of Frederick county, guardian to Matilda Flickinger an infant, who has since intermarried with one Reuben Rachner, and that your orator and one John Flickinger became the securities in the guardian bond of said Snyder, which bond was executed on the 1st May, 1820; that the said Jacob Snyder died about the year 1825,…

In the matter of George Williams, an insolvent debtor, upon the petition of the appellant, the county court (Archer, C. J.) on the 31st July, 1846, passed the following order: For misbehavior by the trustee, the county court may remove him by the power conferred on it by the 10th sec. of act of 1805, ch. 110.

<p>Appeal from Harford County Court.</p> <p>In the matter of the petition of Amos A. Williams and another, for an order of the court on George H. Williams, trustee of George Williams, an insolvent debtor, to sell certain stock of the insolvent.</p> <p>On the 20th Nov’r, 1846, George H. Williams, the trustee in this case, was ordered and directed to proceed forthwith to make sale of all right, title, and interest at law, and in equity, of the said insolvent, in the thirty-five shares of stock in the Savage Manufacturing Company, returned upon the schedule of said insolvent as being mortgaged to Martha Weld; said sale to be made in the city of Baltimore, and free from all liens on said stock, created by said insolvent; and the trustee before proceeding to sell shall give notice, &c., and to report for ratification, &c.</p> <p>From this order, the trustee appealed to this court; and at this term, the appellee moved to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that it was unauthorized.</p>

On the 16th October, 1843, the recognizance of the appellant and another, that he should indemnify the county from all charges that might arise for the maintenance of an illegitimate female child, born on the 27th June, 1842, was filed in said county court.

Mary’s County Court. On the 1st January, 1844, the appellant, as the widow of Charles LI.

Mary's County Court. This was an action of trover, brought by the appellant against the appellee, on the 19th February, 1845. The defendant pleaded non cul. The plaintiff to support the issue on his part joined, proved by Benj. G. Harris, a legal and competent witness, that as agent for the plaintiff, he called on the defendant, for the purpose of making a demand for the delivery of the property mentioned in the declaration.

Mary's County Court. This was an action of debt brought by the appellant against the appellee, on the 19th February, 1845, upon her single bill of $406 46. The defendant pleaded non est factum, upon which issue was joined. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. . 1st Exception.

On the 16th August, 1843, the appellant sued out a writ of scire facias, as follows, viz: “ Charles County, to wit : The State of Maryland to the Sheriff of Charles County, greeting: Whereas, at a county court begun and held at Port Tobacco, in and for Charles county aforesaid, on the third Monday in August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, a certain Abraham Clark, by the judgment of the same court, recovered against a certain Robert Digges,…

This was an action of replevin, brought on the 15th February, 1844, by the appellee, against the appellant, for a lot of tobacco. The property was replevied and delivered to the appellee.

This was an action of debt brought on the 19th July, 1842, by the appellant against the appellee.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced on the 3rd March, 1845, by the appellants against the appellee. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit and limitations. The jury found a verdict for the defendant. At the trial of this cause, the plaintiffs, to support the issues on their part joined, gave in evidence, that Joseph JY.

The appeal in this case is from an order passed on consideration of bill and answers, dissolving an injunction, which had been granted on the bill, to stay a sale of negroes, under executions issued out of that court, on judgments recovered against the defendant, Robert Ghiselin, in favor of other defendants.

This was an action of debt, brought on the 21st October, 1844, by the appellees against the appellants, on the bond of the appellants, sealed on the 20th July, 1833, reciting that “the above bound JY.

The appellants on the 8th May, 1847, filed their petition, alleging that JYotley Young, late of Prince George’s county, deceased, died sometime in or about the month of July, 1846, intestate, leaving your petitioner, Eloise, Martha Young, Benjamin F. Young, and two minor children, to wit, Clement and Julia, his only children and heirs-at-law.

On the 22d November, 1824, John Brewer sued out a writ of fieri facias directed to Henry Harding, sheriff of Montgomery county, upon the judgment rendered against the appellants and Greenbury Penn.

This was an attachment commenced by the appellee on the 24th July, 1844, on the following single bill: “One day after date, I promise to pay Samuel Fahnestock, agent, or order, two hundred dollars and thirty-one cents for value received, as witness my hand and seal this 1st January, 1844. Wi. Graham, (Seal.)” Endorsed, “For value received I assign the within note to James F. Fahnestock. Sam.

The bill in this cause was filed on the 26th May, 1842, by the appellee, and alleged that at the September term of Carroll county court, 1841, Thomas Gurley as the sheriff of Frederick county, recovered against your orator and John B. Boyle, who were sureties for Daniel McKenzie, who was also made one of the defendants in said suit, but was returned by the sheriff of Carroll county '■‘■non esl,” a judgment for $377 58, with interest from the 8th September, 1841, and costs;…

<p>In arriving at a testator’s intention, as expressed in any clause of his will, we are to give as far as is consistent with such intention, some meaning and operation to every expression contained in the clause.</p> <p>A testator devised to his wife all his real and personal estate “ as long as she continues my widow, hut if she intermarries she is to have no more than the law allows her, and the residue to he equally divided among my sons and daughters; hut if she continues my widow, she is to hold, enjoy or dispose of it at her discretion, as I do at present.” Held, that all that is or was intended to he given to the widow, was an estate during widowhood, on condition that if she married she was thereafter to have nothing more than what the law would have allowed her had no such devise been made; but if she continued his widow, then a fee simple was given her.</p>

This was an action of debt, brought on the 8th November, 1842, by the appellee against the appellant. The plaintiff declared on a single bill, following its description precisely, viz: $217 98. Six months after date I promise to pay William West, administrator of Richard West, the sum of two hundred and seventeen dollars and ninety-eight cents, current money, with interest from date, for value received, as witness my hand, and seal this 4th Nov’r, 1833. Erasmus West.

This was an action of assumpsit brought to January term, 1845, by the appellant against the appellee.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by the appellant against the appellees, to January term, 1845. The defendants pleaded the general issue.

The bill in this cause was filed on the 25th July, 1839, by the devisees of Benjamin Tomlinson, deceased, against Gustavus Beall and wife, and other heirs-at-law of the said Benjamin; and Thomas J.… Held: that the decree of the Chancellor could not be impeached in a collateral suit, because he had jurisdiction as presented by the petition.

This was an action of debt, brought by the appellant on the 6th March, 1843, against Daniel Raymond, John Williams, Jacob Clammer and Samuel Coddington, upon a bond, to appellant reciting the recovery of judgment in said county court by him, against the said D. R. for the sum, &c., upon which he was about to sue out a writ of error to the then next Court of Appeals, with condition, that if he should not send up a transcript of the record within the time required by law,…

The bill in this cause was filed on the 17th February, 1845, by John Young, and alleged that on the 22d August, 1843, he purchased of a certain John Neff, at and for the consideration of $7,000, cash payment, all those, parts or parcels of the real estate of the late Josiah Frost, and all other interests in said real estate which were devised by the said deceased to his son, Josiah Frost, Junior, and which were conveyed by the said Frost, Junior, to the said John JYeff, by…

This was an action of trespass upon the case brought on the 27th January, 1844, by the appellee against the appellant. The appellee declared for a reversionary interest in land leased out by her.

Aiteai. from the Court of Chancery. The bill in this cause was filed by the appellees on the 6th August, 1841, and alleged, that by an order of the Chancellor of the 20th January, 1826, and passed in a cause in this court depending, wherein one Samuel Jones of Joshua, since deceased, and Anne his wife, were complainants, and your present orators, as trustees and executors of the last will of one Larkin Shipley, deceased, were defendants, your present orators were directed…

The hill in this cause was filed on the 21st September, 1844, by the appellee, Joseph White, and alleged that about the year 1814, he was taken into the partnership, then existing under the title of John C. White Sons, in the city of Baltimore, and John White fy Co. in the city of JYew York, both of which firms were composed of John Campbell White, Robert, John, and Campbell P. White, and engaged in the general business of merchants and in the business of distilling; that in…

The bill of the appellants, Ashton Alexander and John Wilson, filed on the 26th January, 1847, charged that by an act of the General Assembly of Maryland, passed at its December session, 1838, chapter 226, entitled “An act to vest certain powers in the corporation of the city of Baltimore, in relation to streets,” the Slate of Maryland purports and attempts to confer upon the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the full power and authority to provide for opening, laying out…

The declaration contained the common counts, to which the defendants pleaded the general issue. The verdict and judgment were' for the plaintiff. At the trial of the cause, the plaintiff proved the following note of the defendant. uBaltimore, 1st Nov’r, 1841. $ 822 19. Two years and six months after date, I promise to pay W. T. Somerville, or order, eight hundred and twenty-two dollars and nineteen cents, for value received.

This was an action of trover, brought on the 31st March, 1842, by the appellee against the appellant, for divers articles of merchandise and promissory notes, enumerated and described in the declaration. The defendant pleaded not guilty, on which issue was joined. The verdict was for the plaintiff.

The bill was filed by the appellant on the 9th July, 1832, claiming payment of a legacy bequeathed in 1824, hy Thomas Severson to his daughter Sarah Denny, as a charge upon and out of certain lands bequeathed to his two sons, John and Samuel, in fee. The appellant was the assignee of Sarah. The opinion of this court sufficiently sets forth the allegations of the bill, answers and nature of the claim.

The bill in this cause was filed on the 28th September, 1842, by the appellee, and alleged, that on or about the 3d August, 1840, two negro girls, slaves for life, Kitty fy JYancy, were conveyed to your oratrix by James Shipley, by a deed hearing date the day and year aforesaid, and duly acknowledged and recorded, a certified copy of which is herewith exhibited, that said negro girls have been seized and taken out of the possession of your oratrix by one Isaac C. Anderson,…

This appeal which was argued for the appellant only, with the preceding one, was similar in its circumstances with that: The appellee married Elisabeth Jinn Shipley, another daughter of James Shipley, to whom on the 3d August, 1841, he made another conveyance of a slave called Miranda. The appellee claimed also under a gift, from J. S., to his daughter made in 1835, at which time S. was not, indebted.

On the 22d July, 1841, John Bennett, Thomas Hodges and Matilda Jinn, his wife, filed their bill against H. W. Cooley and Edney W., his wife, of this State, and John William, JVlatilda Jinn, and Mary Elizabeth Rickets, of the State of Ohio. The bill alleged, that William Bennett died seized of certain real estate in Montgomery and Frederick counties, in this State, leaving the complainants and defendants his heirs at law, the heirs in Ohio being infants.

The will of George Heide devised tp his wife Rachel, one equal third part of “ My real estate, for and during the term of her natural life, to be laid off and fixed in that part of my real estate, devised absolutely to my residuary legatees, by three judicious men, to be appointed by the Orphans court of Baltimore county, or the same may be made up in whole or in part of the annuities or yearly ground rents owned by me. “All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate,…

This was an action of Assumpsit, commenced on the 31st August, 1837, by the U. S. Insurance Company, against the appellee. Held: as owner, the policies issued by the United States Insurance Company, the plaintiff at the time of its failure, and before the thirty-first day of May, 1834, numbered 1243, 1243, 948, 1055, 1486, and 1154, and that he has ever since continued to hold the same to this time, and that they were duly presented for payment at the office…

Mary’s County. On the 3d May, 1847, the appellants filed their petition, alleging that, they apprehend they are likely to suffer by the misconduct of the aforesaid Catharine, in the administration of the estate of the aforesaid James, and by the improper use and application by her of certain bonds, for the payment of money, to wit: bond of U. C. Harris, bond of Richard Thomas and of John Wills, which said bonds are assets belonging to the estate of the aforesaid James,…