Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1874-05-29

/
ECCLESTON, HIS WIFE, THOMAS j.
BROWN, CARRIE BROWN, HIS WIFE,
WIN. b. WEBB, RICHARD j. BOWIE,
RICHARD NJ. WILLIAMS EDWIN l..
STANTON, receiver Of The III RST NATION
AL BANK OF WASHINGTON ID. g.,
THOS. ANDERSON WM. V. BOuIC, Jr
| In the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,
as a Court Of Equity.
TIME object of this suit is to procure de-
cree subjeciing The separate estate Of
Martha A. Eccleslon, wife OF Charles A Ec-
cleslon, situated in Montgomery county,
Maryland to the payment Of certain claims
| held by Hall & Hume, of Washington, D. G y,
and TO procure an injunction restraining
Thomas Anderson and William V. Bouic Jr.,
| Trustees from proceeding to sell SAID land,
for an account and for general relief.
The amended and supplemental bill Of COM
| planants state, that heretofore, 10 wit, March
| 9th, 1871, they filed their original bill in this
case against said Charles A Eccleston and
others, alleging in substance that on May 18th,
| 1870, the said Charles A Ecceston aud Mar
iha A. Eccieston, his wife, then residing in
Montgomery county, Maryland, but at the date
| offiling said bill residing in New York, being
| indebted unto the compliments in the sum of
| 81 0S0. 90, did, by their promissorY note of
that date, jointly and severally, promise to
pay to compla nants, sixty days after date, the
said sum of 5 ,0S0.62 with interest from date,
at the rate of per cent. per annum, and for
the faithful performance OF which they bound
themselves and their separate and individual
estates,
Also that said Eccleston and wife are further
indebted to compliments in the sun OF SAL 90
on open account, and that at the time the
same was contracted, the said Martha a.
Eecleston bound and obligated her separate
and individual property for the same.
Also that sud Charles A. Eecleston has no
property ont Of which the same can he made,
but that said Martha A, Ecclcslon has consid-
cradle real estate in said Montgomery county,
and gives a description of the same.
Also that said Charles A. Eccleston and
Martha A. Eccleston, on June md, 1868,
conveyed four Of The tracts of hand mentioned
and described, unto certain Wn. B. Webb,
OF Washington City D c., as Trustee, to
secure the payment of SIS 900 90 said to be
due to the First National Bank Of Washington
d. c., from said CHARTS A. Eccleson, ana for
which the said Eccleston passed his i've prom
isso-y notes, each for the sum Of three thous-
and dollars, payable in one, two, three, four
and FIVE years from date, respectvely; also
that the complainants are remcdiIess save by
the nterposlion OF 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. Ecclestou might be decreed 10
be the property of said Martha a. Bccleston,
and that the real estate of said Martha A
| Eccleston mi glt be decreed to be sold, and the
proceeds of said sale after paying said Wet.b
such sum rs might still be due the First MAJ
tional Bank, the balance might be applied TO
the payment of eomplanauis' caitD, that
Richard j Bowie and Richard u Williams,
Trustees, may he ordered after paving debt,
costs, &C. in the case OF Nindhaln, Execuirlx
of Wudham vs.. Eceleston and wife, to pay
the balance of money arising from the sale IN
said case to the conpanants and for general
relief nlso for Order of Publication against
said f1ccleston and wife and VIM. b. Webb,
aud subpoena against said Thomas J Brown
and wife Richard j Bowie and Richard VI
Williams
The amended and supplemental bill then
states that said Webb appeared hy solicitor
and answered said bill, that said Eeclesion and
wife appeared by solicitor aud demnrred TO
said bill but thai none Other OF said deem
dauts appeared or answered said bill.
1t also states that the demurrer fled BY said
Eccleston aud 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 complainantS
entered an appeal from said decree to the Court
of Appeals OF Mary land, and that the Court of
Appeals reversed the said decree Of said Cir
cult Court and oyerrued the same by decree
passed by said Court OF Appeals and dated
February 2lst, 1873.
talso further states that at the time the
compliments filed their bin, they ere inform
ed of said conveyance TO said Webb. Trustee,
and the said EcclestoI 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 10 convey real estate or give the said
First National Bank lien on said real estate,
the same not being acknowledged as required
by law.
1t further states that from Information hear
say and belief, the conplanantS charge that
no such notes were executed and delivered by
said Eceleston and 10 said Bank as are set
forth in said pretended Deed Of Trust to said
Webb, and that the same was not a Jonq ift}e
TRANSACTION and that the compliments were
mistaken and acted under misinformation and
were in error when they charged as they did,
| in relation thereto, in their original bill.
1t further states that from information,
hearsay and belief, and IN tact, the complain
| ants charge that no snch notes were given by
said Ecclestou 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 Bank, nor was the same or any
part thereof paid by said Bank TO said Ecces-
ton.
1t further states that during the tendency
of this suit in said Court Of Appeals, TO wit,
june 10Th, 1872, the said Bank and said Webb
| filed their bill in said Circuit Court against
| said EceleSton and wife, upon said pretended
| Deed Of Trust, without making these COM
| plainants parties thereto.
1t further states that said bill filed by said
Bank and said Webb against said Eeeleston
and wife was so proceeded in that decree
pro contesso' was taken therein on October
| 18th, 1872, and Thomas Anderson and VIM.
v Bouic, Jr., appointed Trustees to sell said
land, and have advertised the same for sale.
1t further states that neither the notes de-
scrihed in said pretended Deed of Trust, nor
any other notes, were filed in said cause of
said Bank and said Webb vs. Eccleston 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 presumed to have been shown by said
pretended Deed of Trust.
1t further states, that since the passage OF
said decree in said cause of said Bank and
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, D. c., was appointed re-
ceiver of said Bank under and by virtue of
Act of Congress, in such case made and pro-
vided, and chat on January 9th, 1874, he filed
his petition in said case, under the name OF
Edward l.. Stanton, asking TO be made party
co.nt,iaiuant in plare a nd stead of said Rank