O'Neill v. Cole
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Court of Chancery. The bill in this case was filed by the appellee, on the 4th of December 1850, against the appellant and others, stating in substance that by deed, dated tbe 17th of April 1843, Catharine Drake conveyed to complainant certain property in that deed described, and all other her property, in Irust for her use during her life, with absolute power in any manner, and free from the control of any future husband to dispose of said property, and in…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Chancery. The bill in this case was filed by the appellee, on the 4th of December 1850, against the appellant and others, stating in substance that by deed, dated tbe 17th of April 1843, Catharine Drake conveyed to complainant certain property in that deed described, and all other her property, in Irust for her use during her life, with absolute power in any manner, and free from the control of any future husband to dispose of said property, and in the event of a failure on her part to exercise said power, then for the use of complainant and his heirs. That by deed,…
1Opinion of the CourtTuck, J.
This bill was filed by the appellee against the appellant, aud others, for an injunction, which was granted. After the answers were filed the chancellor passed an order continuing the injunction, and on taking evidence under a commission issued by consent, a final decree was passed making the injunction perpetual. From this decree the appellant, one of the defendants, has appealed.
Much of the argument of the counsel for the appellant sought to show that the chancellor in his opinion accompanying the-order continuing the injunction, had taken an erroneous view of the law applicable to the case…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hubbard v. JarrellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1865
- Gillen v. Wakefield State BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
- Cooke's Lessee v. KellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1859
- Equitable Ice Co. v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1915