Hitch v. Davis
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Court of Chancery. The original bill in this case was filed by the appellant, claiming, among other things, a note for $2673.75 as a gift to the complainant from her father, Solomon Betts, during his lifetime. The defendant Davis was the executor and trustee appointed by the will of Betts to execute the trusts thereof, and the other claims in the bill were founded upon provisions in the will of Betts in favor of his daughter, the complainant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Chancery. The original bill in this case was filed by the appellant, claiming, among other things, a note for $2673.75 as a gift to the complainant from her father, Solomon Betts, during his lifetime. The defendant Davis was the executor and trustee appointed by the will of Betts to execute the trusts thereof, and the other claims in the bill were founded upon provisions in the will of Betts in favor of his daughter, the complainant. On the 9th of May 1851, the chancellor filed an opinion and passed a decree dismissing the bill, “ so far as it seeks to recover from…
1Opinion of the CourtMason, J.
The only question before the court upon this appeal is, whether we shall dismiss the appeal or affirm the decree of the chancellor: one of comparatively small importance to the parties, or in principle, as the result would be the same.
That the decree of the chancellor of the 9th of May 1851, dismissing so much of the bill as related to, or sought to recover from, the defendant, a,s respects the note of Rogers, was a final and conclusive adjudication of that particular question, unless it had been in due time regularly appealed from, there can be no doubt. This was not done in the time…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lefever v. LefeverCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1854
- Ringgold v. EmoryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1851
3Cited by2 opinions
- Taylor v. CorneliusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1869
- Blumenthal v. MoitzCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1893