Chambers v. Chalmers
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Court of Chancery. The present bill was filed by the appellant, against the appellee, and one Thomas Lee, (since deceased,) on the 24th of October, 1825. It alleged that the complainant, being seized and possessed of a rope walk, with the necessary hands and stock, &c. on or about the 1st of November, 1826, was applied to by James Chalmers, now deceased, to rent the rope walk and hands to him, and to sell him the stock of materials then on hand, he promising…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Chancery. The present bill was filed by the appellant, against the appellee, and one Thomas Lee, (since deceased,) on the 24th of October, 1825. It alleged that the complainant, being seized and possessed of a rope walk, with the necessary hands and stock, &c. on or about the 1st of November, 1826, was applied to by James Chalmers, now deceased, to rent the rope walk and hands to him, and to sell him the stock of materials then on hand, he promising to secure complainant, by a mortgage of all his, the said Chalmers, property, real, personal, and mixed. That wishing to…
1Opinion of the CourtArcher, J.
According to the established practice of Chancery in this State, it may be taken to be a general rule, that a defendant, although he answer the bill, and issue be thereon joined, may at the hearing object, that the case made in the bill, does not entitle the party to equitable relief; and if his ob*439jection be sustained, the bill will be dismissed. Gover vs. Christie, 2 Harr, and Johns. 67. Drury vs. Conner, 1 Harr, and Gill, 220. McAttee vs. Johnson, M. S. Peale vs. Gas Light Co. M. S.
This rule, however, as it regards some defences, at least, given by statute, cannot apply. Thus, limitations…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Crook v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1857
- Tartar v. GibbsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1865
- Robinson v. MarinoCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1924
- Gibbs v. CunninghamHigh Court of Chancery of Maryland · 1850
- Fisher v. ParrCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1901