Dixon v. Dixon
High Court of Chancery of Maryland
[This was a creditor’s suit, and the Auditor’s report, with the statement of claims, having been set down for hearing on exceptions, the demand for full proof, and the plea of limitations, an order was passed sustaining the plea of limitations as to some claims, and settling other points, and referring the case again to the Auditor, to state an account from which were to be rejected all claims not then (the time of the audit) fully-proved, and in which the plea of…
Read the full summary
[This was a creditor’s suit, and the Auditor’s report, with the statement of claims, having been set down for hearing on exceptions, the demand for full proof, and the plea of limitations, an order was passed sustaining the plea of limitations as to some claims, and settling other points, and referring the case again to the Auditor, to state an account from which were to be rejected all claims not then (the time of the audit) fully-proved, and in which the plea of limitations was to be allowed against all claims liable to its operation, in favor of the parties pleading or relying upon the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor:
The claims in question, have never yet been submitted to, and adjudicated upon by, the court. If they had, and had been finally rejected, through the negligence of their owners, the case would be brought within the decision of the Court of Appeals, in Kent vs. O'Hara, 7 Gill & Johns., 212, and the parties must take the consequences. It would not only be inconvenient, but mischievous, to delay and embarrass the claims of vigilant creditors, and procrastinate the final settlement of estates, if parties were allowed, after full notice and opportunity to establish their claims, to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Southern Maryland Oil, Inc. v. KaminetzCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1971
- Northrop v. BealeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1936
- Whelan v. CookCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1868