Case ID: ohio_2/html/0239-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Baird v. Shepherd.
    Time enlarged for performing decree in chancery.
    In chancery, before Judges Hitchcock and Burnet, in Adams county, May, 1826.
    By the decree rendered in this cause at the last term, the complainant was required to execute and deliver to the defendant a bond, with approved security, to indemnify him against certain covenants of warranty, which he had made in the sale of the property in controversy. The complainant was directed to execute and deliver the bond within a specified time, in order to entitle himself to the benefit of the decree.
    The facts of the case were, that the bond was executed in conformity with the decree, but was deposited in the clerk’s office, instead of being delivered to Shepherd.
    Grimke and Fitzgerald now moved for a rule to enlarge the time limited in the decree for the delivery of the bond,
    and cited 2 Mad. Ch. 493, 495, 496, 524, 525. The motion was granted on terms — allowing the defendant the same time to pay the money after the present term, and ordering interest to be calculated from the same day in reference to the commencement of the present term, .as was provided in the original decree in reference to the commencement of the last term.
   Motion allowed.