Grove v. Fresh
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Chancery. On the 23d of June, 1835, William II. Fresh filed liis bill in Chancery, alleging that he, with a certain John Stocksdale, entered into a partnership, for the purpose of obtaining a contract and constructing a section of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal; that a contract was accordingly entered into between Stocksdale in his own name, and the Canal Company, for the construction of the 147th section thereof; it being agreed between the appellant and appellee…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Chancery. On the 23d of June, 1835, William II. Fresh filed liis bill in Chancery, alleging that he, with a certain John Stocksdale, entered into a partnership, for the purpose of obtaining a contract and constructing a section of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal; that a contract was accordingly entered into between Stocksdale in his own name, and the Canal Company, for the construction of the 147th section thereof; it being agreed between the appellant and appellee that Fresh should be considered a dormant partner; that soon after the contract was entered into, the parties agreed to…
1Opinion of the CourtDorset, Judge
The first objection to the decree is, that the proceedings upon which it is founded were too summary. However severely the expedition with which this cause was brought to a final decree may operate upon the appellant, it was warranted by the acts' of assembly, under which the . proceedings were had, and therefore forms no ground upon which this court can reverse the.decree.
The second, objection is equally untenable. It urges the reversal of the decree, because it decreed that the bill be taken pro confessó. That part of the decree by which the bill was adjudged to be taken pro confesso, was…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Seeley v. DunlopCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1929
- American Bonding Co. v. State Ex Rel. Commercial & Farmers' National BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1913
- Bruns v. HeiseCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1905