Court Opinion

ID: 6558342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 19:04:48.955633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:56:25.171690
License: Public Domain

Ridgely, Chancellor.
Were the Act of Assembly to regulate the proceedings in this Court, it would defeat the powers of the Court; for in all cases, where the security was given according to the Act, the Court would be obliged to decree a payment, without the power of imposing any terms, however proper, just as a court of law would be. Already,the Court may compel a complainant to give security to refund, or to indemnify the executor, and it is not necessary to adopt by analogy any new power or authority under the Act. That Statute applies strictly to eases at law, and gives the courts of common law a jurisdiction. which they did not possess, but which this Court possesses more amply than is given by the Act to courts of law. By the Stat. 2 Geo. 2, c. 23, sec. 23, an attorney cannot bring 'an action unless he has delivered his bill one month; hut he may take out a commission of bankruptcy for fees, while his bill is under taxation. The reason, Lord Eldon says, is that a commission of bankruptcy, being a prompt remedy, the object would be defeated by waiting a month. 15 Ves. Jr. 479, 480,487, 489. To him the remedy in this Court being more complete, an adoption of the Statute would narrow the power of the Court, so that in all cases complete justice might not be done.
The plea was overruled and the defendant ordered to answer.