Difference between revisions of ".MTY4MjU.Njc4MTM"

From Transcribe Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Brooks v Brooks } This case comes on on the report of Commr Bryce. The affidavits and statement of debt due from Tho Brooks to Wm Payne for support of himself and wife.
+
Brooks v Brooks } This case comes on on the report of Commr Bryce & the affidavits and statement of debt due from Tho Brooks to Wm Payne for support of himself and wife.
He not to make any objection to these affidavits and statements at present, though if the case is sent back we shall claim the right to do so: there are two objections to allowing the admr a credit for it as against plff.  1st It is a change for appointing her father & mother raised after their death extending through thirteen years, without the slightest evidence of any contract between them. This is a sort of claim improperly represented by the Court of Appeals in a case reported in one of the [Randolphes?]
+
He not to make any objection to these affidavits and statements at present, though if the case is sent back we shall claim the right to do so: There are two objections to allowing the admr a credit for it as against plff.  1st It is a change for supporting her father & mother raised after their death extending through thirteen years, without the slightest evidence of any contract between them. This is a sort of claim improperly represented by the Court of Appeals in a case reported in one of the [Randolphes?]
2d It is debt due by amount not even in writing and the plffs debt is by Court, the amount must therefore be [illegible] to it.
+
2d It is debt due by amount not even in writing and the plffs debt is by Court, the amount must therefore be [illegible] to it.  
 +
June 13th 1844 Gratton & Bryce & [illegible]

Latest revision as of 16:33, 20 July 2019

Brooks v Brooks } This case comes on on the report of Commr Bryce & the affidavits and statement of debt due from Tho Brooks to Wm Payne for support of himself and wife. He not to make any objection to these affidavits and statements at present, though if the case is sent back we shall claim the right to do so: There are two objections to allowing the admr a credit for it as against plff. 1st It is a change for supporting her father & mother raised after their death extending through thirteen years, without the slightest evidence of any contract between them. This is a sort of claim improperly represented by the Court of Appeals in a case reported in one of the [Randolphes?] 2d It is debt due by amount not even in writing and the plffs debt is by Court, the amount must therefore be [illegible] to it. June 13th 1844 Gratton & Bryce & [illegible]