McKelway v. Armour

The Chancellor.

The facts of this case will be found in 4 Halst. Ch. R. 322, Potts v. Armour, reported by mistake as Potts v. Amono. That bill was filed for a different purpose from that of the present one. The decision, however, involved the same equities as exist here. That bill was dismissed, for want of prosecution, upon the failure of the complainant to amend his bill, the Chancellor having decided that to be necessary, although this does not appear in the case as reported.. The object of the present bill is to relieve the complainant from the embarrassment of having erected a valuable…