Difference between revisions of ".MjkwNzU.MTAyNDA2"
m (Protected ".MjkwNzU.MTAyNDA2" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
Latest revision as of 10:07, 17 November 2020
3 of this court the Chancery Cause in which your orator obtained the decree above set forth was also depending on the chancery side of this Court - And it was always the object at both parties as Your Orator believes and charges was to bring the two courses as in such a way, as that they might be decided at the same term, in order that the balance might be struck between the judgment in favor of the one and the decree in favor of the other - And at the Oct term 1845 of this court when this judgment & decree where rendered Your orator by his counsel (as is stated in his original Bill) made this proposition in open court which the Said Rosser by his counsel refused to assent to. Your Orator also states that he verily believes & charges that the said Rosser is indebted to him to the full amt of the said execution which is now in the hands of the sheriff and which the officer will proceed to make out of the property of Your orator unless Your Honor will reinstate the said Injo or award an order injouring him from further proceeding on said judgment - He also charges that the said Rosser's circumstances to say the least of them are certainly excedingly doubtful, and from the security which he has been informed has been given to the superedeas bond above alluded to. he does not consider that the said bond is much strengthened by the addition of their names because they are persons so connected with said Rosser that their fates are also united - and he thinks that if he could only