The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1893-03-18
co,rt 81 Anneals necisions.

The Court of Appeals this week rendered
decisions in number of cases, two from the
Circuit Court for Carroll county.
The bequest of $500 to Emanuel Lutheran
Church, Manchester, contained in the Will OF
Henry Tasto was set aside in an opinion
written by Judge Fowler, which reverses the
Circuit Court for Carroll county. The money
was left for the benefit of the needy poor Oh
the church. 1t was set aside because OF 1n-
certainty as to the benehciaries and also
because the testator did not comply with the
act of 1888 by giving directions in his will as as
to the formation of a corporation to take
charge of the fund.
The decree in favor of the husband is affirm
ed in the case of Rebecca Wagner, by her
next friend, VS.. Elijah Wagner, Judge Page
delivering the opinion OF he court. The
appellant filed Der bill praying for separate
maintenance and support for herself and
daughter out of the rents and profits oil
certain real estate mentioned therein and
also for an injunction to restrain him from
collecting such as might be set apart for her,
and also from interfering with the property
until the final hearing of the case. Upon
the filing of this bill the court, March Is,
1885, ordered the injunction, and the writ was
accordingly issued on the following day.
The defendant answered the bill and moved
was pending the complainant, having first
obtained leave from the court, filed an amend
ed and supplemental bill. This amend ed
bill contained substantially the same aver
ments as the original and prayed for the relief,
except that the maintenance was asked only
for herself, the daughter having married and
gone from her home since the original oil
was filed. 1T was contended at the argu-
ment," says Judge Page in his opinion
THAT, Notwithstanding the order of the court
refusing the injunction asked for in the
amended bill and the final decree making the
refusal permanent and dismissing the bill,
the injunction granted upon the original bill
is still continuing. But we cannot assent to
this The amendment to the bill in this
case was made not by filing a paper contain
ing only such averments as were amendstory,
but by an entirely new bill, complete in all its
parts, containing substantially the same
averments and praying for the same relief as
the original bill. IL was clearly intended
by the complainant and understood by the
court as a substitute for the original com
plant. The bill prays for separate main
tenance out of property mentioned therein.
This property, it is stated, consists of that
which the complainant acquired by the death
of her father in 1852. and that which was
purchased by her in 1878 from Mr. McKellip.
The injunction is also asked, not only to res
train the defendant from interfering with
such property as may be set apart for her
maintenance, but also with any of the proper
ty until the final hearing. 1t is difficult to
conceive upon what theory it can be claimed
that the averments Of the bill are sufficient to
justify court in allowing an injunction as to
the property acquired from Mr.. McKellip.
1t is not clearly alleged that the defendant
has made any effort to collect the rents from
this property, nor is it charged that she is in
of any act of his. Having been acquired by
purchase since the adoption of the code Of
| 1861, she holds it as if she were a feme sole.
and it can, therefore, not be subjected to a
decree for separate maintenance in suit
against her husband