Allen v. Burke

1 Md. Ch. 544
CourtHigh Court of Chancery of Maryland
DecidedFebruary 12, 1829
StatusPublished

This text of 1 Md. Ch. 544 (Allen v. Burke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering High Court of Chancery of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Allen v. Burke, 1 Md. Ch. 544 (Md. Ct. App. 1829).

Opinion

Bland, Chancellor.

The motion of the petitioner Sarah Allen, that the decree should be revived having been submitted on her part, and no cause having been shewn to the contrary, the proceedings were read and considered.

The act of 1820, ch. 161, it is evident, was intended to provide a course of proceeding by which any party who had a right to revive a suit that had abated, in the manner specified, before a final decree, might have it revived in a mode less expensive and dilatory than in the common way by a bill of revivor. It is manifest, that the general object of that law was to shorten and envigorate the [545]*545proceedings in chancery. It certainly cannot be considered as embracing any cases of abatement after a decree; because its phraseology expressly refers to cases which have not been brought to a termination, and to suits where such final decree as to right shall appertain,” remains to be made; and also, because it could not have been the intention of the legislature to provide a new mode of proceeding more expensive and less energetic than one already well established; as is the case in suits abating by the death of a party after a decree.

According to the course of proceeding. in chancery, where a party dies, or a female plaintiff marries, after the final decree has been enrolled, such decree and proceedings must be revived by a subpcena scire facias. Which mode of reviving a suit, however, can only be pursued by or against the heir, the legal representatives, or those -who are privy in blood or contract to the deceased party; and who, as such, may be benefited or bound by the decree : but they are precluded from going into its merits; and upon the same principles the merits of the decree cannot be questioned even on a bill in nature of a bill of revivor by an .assignee or a devisee,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hollingsworth v. M'Donald
2 H. & J. 230 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1806)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Md. Ch. 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-burke-mdch-1829.