Purviance v. Barton
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Court of Chancery. The'bill, which was filed in this case by the appellee, on the 31st of January, 1825, sought to charge the appellants, John Purviance and John 11. Dorsey, administrator of Waller Dorsey, with the sum of §1,233 27, which it alleged the Said John and Waller owed to Selh Barton, the intestate of the complainant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Chancery. The'bill, which was filed in this case by the appellee, on the 31st of January, 1825, sought to charge the appellants, John Purviance and John 11. Dorsey, administrator of Waller Dorsey, with the sum of §1,233 27, which it alleged the Said John and Waller owed to Selh Barton, the intestate of the complainant. As the decision turned upon the true meaning of the act of 1820, ch. 16J, and the merits of the case were not involved, it is not necessary to set out the particulars of the complainant’s claim, as presented by the bill. The subpeena which issued upon…
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.
We have carefully examined this case, and think it is not attended with much difficulty, when freed from objections which do not legitimately belong to it, but which have been urged with great ability and ingenuity. It would seem from the argument, the true construction of the act of 1820, ch. 161, sec. 1, is only to be collected from the interlocutory order it directs. This order is a mere subordinate feature in the law, and its aid is not required to explain that which is clear and manifest without it: give to it what name or character you please, it cannot authorise the Chancellor to take…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Knight v. BrawnerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1859
- Turpin v. DericksonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1907