The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1885-02-07
ORDER OF PUBLICATION.
NO. 22s1 EoUITY
w -----lI IN . 4 7.
In the Circuit Court for Carroll county sitting
as a Court of Equity.

In the Circuit Court for Carroll county sitting
as Court of Equity.
Henry Eyler vs.. George W. Essick. Eliza
Essick, his wife, and G. f. Reichle.
The object of this salt is 10 procure the an.
pointment of a receiver for certain personal
property now in the possession Of George w.
Essick, and to obtain a decree for the sale Of
the same. The bill states that on August 9th.
1880, certain d. Washington Shoemaker
recovered a Judgment in the Circuit Court for
Carroll county against George w. Essick, for
the sum of S570.33, with interest thereon
from the said 9th day of August, 1880, and
$S.6S costs, which Judgment was on the 10th
day of May, 1884, by the said D. Washington
Shoemaker assigned to Henry Eyer, the
complainant; that said George W. Essick is
not seized or possessed of any real estate, but
was seized of certain personal property goods
and chattels set forth in said bill; that feri
facias was issued on said Judgment to the
sheriff of Carroll county, returnable on the
second Monday of November, 1884; that by
virtue of said writ the said sheriff on the 18th
day of August, 1884, levied upon the aforesaid
personal property as the property, goods and
chattels of the said George w. Essick; that
portion Of the said articles of personal prop
erty are included also in bill of sale executed
on the End day of March, 1880. by the said
George w. Essick to a certain Angelina
Reichle, wife of G. F. Reichle, of Adams
county, in the State of Pennsylvania, and
said articles embraced in said bill of sale are
fully set forth in said bill Of complaint; that
the value of the property so levied upon is
greatly in excess of the value of the property
mentioned in said bill of sale, and exceeds
the value of the same at least $4,000, and
the property levied upon and seized by the
sheriff aforesaid and not mentioned in said
bill of sale is of the value of about $500; that
said property, goods and chattels are the
property, goods and chattels of the said
George w. Essick and that said George w.
Essick is not seized or possessed of any other
property out of which the complainant claim
can be made or realized; that Eliza Essick,
the wife of said George w. Essick, claims the
greater portion of said property so levied upon
as her own, and alleges that the remainder
belongs to said Angelina Reichle, wife of G.
T. Reichle, under the bill of sale aforemen-
toned; that hence the said sheriff refused to
execute further said writ of feri facias, and
made his return in accordance with the above
facts; that said bill of sale is fraudulent and
void, and was executed and is held for the
purpose of preventing the complainant from
making his just claim out of the property of
the defendant, George w. Essick; that the
said Angelina Reichle has since departed this
life intestate, in Adams county, III the state
of Pennsylvania, leaving her husband, G. f.
Reichle, surviving her, residing in said county
and state, but left no children, and the com
plainant has no knowledge as to whether she
left any other heirs or not.
The complainant prays that said property
may be sold, and that the Court pass an order
or decree appointing receiver to take pos
session of and sell all of said property, upon
such terms as the Court may prescribe, and
that the said George w. Essick and Eliza
Essick, his wife, may be restrained by an in
junction from selling, removing or disposing
of said property or any part thereof
1t is thereupon, this fourteenth day of Jan
uary, A. D., 1885, adjudged and ordered
that the complainant, by causing a copy of
this order to be inserted in some newspaper
published in Carroll county, Maryland, once
in each of four successive weeks, before the
18th day of March, next, give notice to the
said absent defendants of the object and sub
stance of this bill, and warn them to appear.
in this Court in person or by solicitor on or
before the 18th day of June, next, to answer
the premises and show cause, if any they
have, why decree ought not to pass as
prayed.
FRANK T. SHAW, Clerk.
True copy,-Test:
feb7:4t Frank 7. SHAW, Clerk.