The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1852-05-08
NGEsGEI
Thomas IFickcrshuHr,

lHoliaS " IchcfshGE1
vs. IN the Circuit
George ". Tsy !or, and Han Court for Coed
anh Taylor LIS Wiz. william sstfngas Court
,. Bailey, Ci'srie5 FULLER ,.Ai Is h4hceiy.
J..er OK. t,uti 1859.
TI'iE. t.! cci of lis srit j" IA lr'cnf' brcrrc
| ag tie sale OF &C., All mo. i"a-ri pfeH5;stS ~
Cecil comfy, which we!c ln."'ga@ed on ne
liza day Of April in nc stoi 80. ~ the d.
i"n!anis Gcor." ", Iuy!v.. sEt u nH. ny
lur, bis wife, ia the comIiaiouM ,'I.+ IN nlH""-
Ii against tho said George ", IT.! ~.
The BIZ states that on the itth day 81 AMI
in the year 1850, the sail George =, Ia! Ion,
being indebted unto the complainant, did exc
cute this bond Of that cate, in IT," p'noi sum of
enc thousand dollars, with a conni'ion there
Gn Ter written. for the payment G! ihc sum II
1--we hundred dollars on o. before the /. day &C
April IN the year 1851. with interest ior The
sane scnjaHura'iy, iinm the Gatc Ilrr' OF, ana,
that the said George ". Tay'r, nnl lis vile
Hannah Iaycr, Ga Tie day anl =, ar fast a!ure-
sail. conveyed certain real estate vi ich is PAR
lcuIariy described in the bill ami ii, accompany
Ing exhibits, unto the conf !ainant, by wnyoi umt
gage to secure The payment Of said sum Of $500,
with interest, on or before the 18th 'ay OF Alr!l
IN the year 1851, that before the execution nr
the said bond and mortgage to Ike complainant,
that is to say On the Is day Of April III The ycnr
1915. the sail defendant George ". Tay Ion,
will! his wife Hannah Taylor, an! Franklin A.
Taylor, who then owned an interest in said rta
estate, which lie afterwards (but tei0re the cX--
cuton Of Tie said rnorlgaye 10 the comr!ainan)
yrd to the said William 5. Bailey, the sad
real estate by way Of mortgage TO secure 10 him
the payment of S20uO,--un TT before II erNpira-
ton Of Two Yeas thereafter, with interest semi
annually, as the complainant had been .nioIm-
cI,-but whether H. "ApIe or auy raIt ut HE
said sam of 200 remains unpaid the ccmTlatn-
ant does not know and Iirzt the sad Ecui-t v.
Taylor and Hannah rayior, his wife, did utter
wards, viz: ON the 9th DAY 0f January IN tie
year 1881, convey 10 tie defendants Charles
Tu!ler az Jesse Cox, III lee the said Eca! IT,
tate. who seem TO be the present owners q il.
Z The BIZ then charges thai no part of the u'oEc-
s;li sum ui 5000, oi the interest accIGin thCrt-
on. has ever been paid except 50 much interest
as was due ~, 10 the liIh day ofCct, Der 1891,
and that The complainant has been creJib'y W.
formed that the said def Ian! George W. Ta}-
lor, or some one by his direction and auli.orIly,
has been anl sill is ,n:aged in cCmmitt.
waste en- the said nio;aaged premises. b! -
movtng and mutatSng the buillmas, and ly
taking rp aud carryin@ away the fences 'he!c-
on, aa1 that The said William S. Bailey, Ctas.
fuller and Jesse Cox. RI side ont Of III, State Of
Maryand.
1t is thercupan aiindgcd and ordered, that the
complainant by causing Il copy ofthis order TO
b" inserted IN some newspaper Published IN
!, Cecil county. once week for one month"; be
fore III" first day Of June next, give notice to
the s"i absent defendants ni the object ant sub
stanc" Il this Hill, and warn them 10 appear in
this Court IN person or BY solicitor, Oh before
, IN" ,,r.t day CT September next, to answer the
premises and shcw cause, if any they have, why
IA decree ought not 10 pass a. prayed.
ALBERT CONSTABLE
.. True copy. Test,
H. II. MITCHELL,
Apr p, so iw Clerk.