Barnum v. Raborg
High Court of Chancery of Maryland
[The bill in this case was filed on the 4th of March, 1845, by the complainants, Ephraim K. Barnum and Zenos Barnum, as executors of David Barnum, deceased; and states, that on the 8th of July, 1844, the complainants, as executors as aforesaid, sold certain parcels of land situated in Baltimore county, to Catharine M. McClellan and Catharine M. Raborg, for the sum of $12,000; but at that price to be freed and cleared from a mortgage given by their testator, to one George…
Read the full summary
[The bill in this case was filed on the 4th of March, 1845, by the complainants, Ephraim K. Barnum and Zenos Barnum, as executors of David Barnum, deceased; and states, that on the 8th of July, 1844, the complainants, as executors as aforesaid, sold certain parcels of land situated in Baltimore county, to Catharine M. McClellan and Catharine M. Raborg, for the sum of $12,000; but at that price to be freed and cleared from a mortgage given by their testator, to one George Brown, for a debt of $8,000, dated the 8th of April, 1841. The bill then states and charges, that though the said…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor:
I have read carefully the evidence taken by the parties under the order of the 18th of September last, passed upon the petition of Zenos Barnum, objecting to the sureties in the appeal bond filed by the defendants in this case, and am of opinion, that the objections are not sustained.
The solicitor for the complainants and purchaser, suggests, that the sureties in an appeal bond, if excepted to, should justify, in analogy to the practice at law in the case of bail.
But the late Chancellor in Ringgold’s Case, 1 Bland, 27, says, “there does not appear to be any settled mode of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Bethea v. BetheaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1903