Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1874-06-12

PARTNERS, TRADING, &C., AS HALL
| & HUME.
CHARLES A.. ECCLEsToN, MARTHA A.
BROWN, CARRIE BROWN, HIS WIFE,
WM b. WEBB, RICHARD J. BOWIE,
RICHARD NJ. WILLIAMS, EDWIN l..
| STANTON, receiver Of the III fiST N ATlON-
AL BANK or WASHINGTON, D. G.,
THOS. ANDERSON 4 WM. " B0UlC, Jr.
In The Circuit Court for Montgomery County,
as Court Of Equity.
TIME object of this suit is to procure a de-
| i cree subjeciing the separate estnte Of
Martha A. Eccleston, wife OF Charles Ec-
eleston, situated in Montgomery county,
Maryland, TO the payment Of certain claims
held by Hall Il Hume, OF Washington, d, g..
and TO procure nm injunction restraining
! Thomas Anderson.and William VI. Bouic, Jr.,
Trustees, from proceeding to sell said. land,
for an aecountand for general relief.
! The amended and supplemental bill Of com
| plainants state, that heretofore, TO wit, March
9th, 1871, they fled their original bill III this
case against said Charles A. Ecceston and
others, alleging in substance that OF My 10Th,
| 1870 the said Charles A. Ecceston and Mar
tina A, Eccleston, his wife, then residing in
| Montgomery county, Maryland, but at the date
Of fling said bill residing in New York, being
| indebted unto the complainants in the sum Of
| 81, 0S062, did by their promissorY note OF
that date, jointly and severaly, promise to
pay to compainants, sixty days after date, the
slid sum of 81 $50 81 with interest from date,
at the rate of per cent. per annum, and for
the faithful performance of which they bonnd
themselves and their separate and individual
cstdtes.
Also that said Eccleston and wife are further
Indebted to co,npainanis in the sum OF Sal 90
on open account and that at the time the
same was contracted, the said Martha
Eecleston bound and obligated her separate
and individual property for the same.
Also that sad Charles A. Ecclesion has no
property out Of which the same can be made,
but that said Martha A. Ecclestou has consid-
cradle real estate in said Montgomery county,
and gives description of the same.
Also that said Charles A. Eccleston and
Martha A. Eccleston, on June End, 1868,
conveyed four OF The tracts of land mentioned
and described, unto "a certain VIM, b. Webb,
Of Washington City, ? O., as Trustee TO
secure the payment Of $l5, 900 90 said 10 he
due 10 the First National Bank Of Washington,
D. c., from said Charles A. Ecceston, and for
which the said Eecleston passed his five prom
isso.y notes, each for the sum of three thous-
and dollars payable in one, two, three, four
and five years from date, respectively also
that the complainants are remedies save by
the interposilion OF a Court of Equity
Also that the bill prayed that the defendants
named therein might appear and answer the
said bill, that the property mentioned IN
bond of conveyance from Thomas j. Brown
to Martha A. Eccleston might be decreed TO
be the property of said Martha a. EcclesUn,
and that the real estate of said Martha A.
Ecceston might be decreed TO he Sold and the
proceeds Of said sale after paying said Webb
such sum as might still be due the First Ma
tional Bank, the balance might be applied to
the payment of complainants' claim, that
Richard j. Bowie and Richard NJ. Williams,
Trustees, may be ordered after paying debt,
costs, &c, in the case of Windham, Execntrix
of Windham VS.. Eccleston and wife, TO pay
the balance of money arising from the sale in
said case to the compliments and for general
relief also for Order of Publication against
said Eceeston and wife and VIM. b. Webb,
and subpoena against said Thomas j.. Brown
and wife, Richard j. Bowie and Richard NJ
| Williams
The amended and supplemental bill then
states that said Webb appeared by solicitor
and answered said bill thai said Eccleston and
wife appeared by solicitor and demurred to
said bill but that none other Of said deem
dants appeared or answered said bill.
II also states that the demurrer filed by said
Ecceston and wife was sustained BY the Circuit
Court for Montgomery. county, in Equity, by
decree passed by said Court, and dated
February 9th, 1872, that said compainants
entered an appeal from said decree to the Court
of Appeals OF Marylan and that the Court Of
Appeals reversed the said decree OF said Cir
cult Court and overruled the same by decree
passed by said Court of Appeals and dated
February 2lst, 1878.
also further states that at the time the
compliments filed their bill, they were inform
ed Of said conveyance to said Webb, Trustee,
and the said Ecceston had given said notes in
the manner as they had set forth, and there
fore, charged the same on said information,
but they have recently discovered that said
Deed OF Trust to said Webb is not sufficient in
law TO convey real estate or give the said
First National Bank lien on said real estate,
the same not being acknowledged as required
by law.
II further states that from information hear
say and belief, the complainants charge that
no such notes were executed and delivered by
said Eccleston and 10 said Bank AS are get
forth n said pretended Deed Of Trust 10 said
Webb and that The same was not bonggde
transaction, and that the complainants were
mistaken and acted under misinformaiion and
were IN error when they charged as they did,
In relation thereto, In their original bill
II further states that from Information,
hearsay and belief, and IN fact, the complain
ants charge that no such notes were giyenby
said Ecceston to said Bank and that the sum
Of money alleged in said pretended Deed OF
Trust to be due said Bank is not due and ow-
ing to sa d Bank, nor WAS the same o. cay
part thereof paid by said Bank TO said Eccles-
ton.
II further states that during the pendency
of this suit in said Court of Appeals, 10 wit,
June 9th, 1879, the said Bank aud said webb
filed their bill in said Circuit Court against
said Ecceston and wife, upon said pretended
Deed Of Trust, without making these COM
plainants parties thereto.
II further states that said bill filed by said
Bank and said Webb against said Ecceston
and wife was so proceeded in that decree
"pro confesso'' was taken therein on October
18th, 1872, and Thomas Anderson and VIM
" Bouic, Jf., appointed Trustees to cell said
land, and have advertised the same for sale.
II further states that neither the notes de-
scribed in said pretended Deed Of Trust, nor
any other notes, we're filed in said cause Of
said Bank and said Webb VS., Ecclcston and
wife. nor was any evidence Of Indebtedness
Exhibited with said bill, nor filed in said cause
nor was any proof taken therein other than
what is presu med 10 have been shown by said
pretended Deed OF Trust.
IL further states, that since The passage Of
said decree in said cause OF said Bank aud
said Webb vs. Eccleston and wife, the said
Bank having failed to redeem its circulating
notes, when payment thereof was legally de-
manded, a certain Edwin l.. Stanton, Of
Washington City, b. G.. was appointed re-
cciver OF said Bank under and BY virtue Of
Act of Congress- in snch case made and pro-
yided and that on IauuarV 9th 1874 lie filed