Smith v. Baldwin

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Smith v. Baldwin

4 H. & J. 331

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedJune 15, 1818

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 H. & J. 331 (Smith v. Baldwin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Baldwin, 4 H. & J. 331 (Md. 1818).

Pincite

Opinion

Buchanan, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. The objection Urged to the decree on the ground that all the evidence in the cause was taken before Ruth Currens was made a party, and that either another commission ought to have issued, and testimony been taken de novo; or that the cause should have been heard on bill and answer as to all the defendants, without reference to the testimony, is unsupported either on principle or authority, Ruth Currens, in her answer, admits all the allegations in the bill; in relation to her, therefore, no testimony was wanted, and she could not in any manner be injured or affected by the evidence taken before she became a party; and the making her a defendant furnished no reason lor taking the testimony over again, as against Smith and Miller. The rule is, that where new parties are added, after the testimony is taken, the cause shall be heard on bill and answer as to such new defendants.

The Court thinks the decree of the Chancellor is right on the merits.

DECREE AJD'EIRMED,

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

Buchanan, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. The objection Urged to the decree on the ground that all the evidence in the cause was taken before Ruth Currens was made a party, and that either another commission ought to have issued, and testimony been taken de novo; or that the cause should have been heard on bill and answer as to all the defendants, without reference to the testimony, is unsupported either on principle or authority, Ruth Currens, in her answer, admits all the allegations in the bill; in relation to her, therefore, no testimony was wanted, and she could not in any manner be injured or affected by the evidence taken before she became a party; and the making her a defendant furnished no reason lor taking the testimony over again, as against Smith and Miller. The rule is, that where new parties are added, after the testimony is taken, the cause shall be heard on bill and answer as to such new defendants.

The Court thinks the decree of the Chancellor is right on the merits.

DECREE AJD'EIRMED,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 H. & J. 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-baldwin-md-1818.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack