The original bill filed herein for the purpose foreclosing a mortgage upon a large tract real estate and certain items personal property account certain indebtednesses which had arisen between the complainants and the defendant Thaggard and wife, ranging through a series years.
In such bill is alleged that the codefendants Camp, who have since filed this crossbill, claitned have some interest in certain portions the real estate, and asked that they summoned appear and answer, and show what right and interest they have, and what cause, if any, they have why a decree granting the option the bill should not made. These codefendants filed an answer, alleging that at a certain time previous to the accruing some the items indebtedness alleged have been the basis the mortgage herein a contract between the codefendant Thaggard proquest thesis search and themselves was duly executed, which Thaggard bound himself sell and convey said orators in said cross-bill certain portions the lands covered the mortgage, after a certain lapse time, i per acre that such contract was made and entered into prior certain items indebtedness which are included in the mortgage sought foreclosed that at the expiration the time at which the transfer pay for essay writing the land was made the Thaggards and paid for their codefendants Camp a supplementary agreement was made which the agreement was continued in force three years longer, and that at the expiration that time the Thaggards were bound convey the Camps some several thousand who can write my paper for me acres land, and the Camps were bound pay therefor the sum i per acre that the Thaggards were permitted continue in possession the lands until was transferred in accord ance with said contract. In addition said answer, said defendants Camp have filed a cross-bill stating the substance the allegations the answer, alleging that this contract sale was prior certain advances included in the amounts for which the mortgage sought foreclosed, and that such contract phd by dissertation only they took a prior right and interest in professional research paper writing service such roperty, and treated that the matter inquired into, and that not only they held have a prior right, under such contract and agreement, such lands, but that the mortgage that extent should be held and declared void and no effect as against them, and should canceled.
Help with writing a thesis
To this cross-bill a demurrer has been filed, contending that the right the codefendants could not litigated in a suit for the foreclosure a mortgage, that ail the allegations of benefit the defendants Camp could have been made and relied upon in the answer, and that no affirmative relief could granted as against the complainant or the codefendant Thaggard under such cross-bill.
Top dissertation writing services
I think the law may plainly and briefly stated that, where the allegations a cross-bill show facts which would, upon any reasonable construction, justify the cancellation a contract or agreement which has been made the basis the original suit, or where any defendant wishes affirmative relief transfer him the legal title the whole or a portion the premises in question, a cross-bill will lie that where rights exist buy cheap essays between codefendants growing out and involved in the matters and things alleged in the original bill, and by which one defendant may compelled, in order gain his full rights, demand affirmative relief, need not confined the allegations the answer, but may further, and demand that ail questio RS,involved in the suit passed upon the court.
In this case not only, does the cross-bill seek set aside the effect the mortgage sued upon, but treats that such mortgage declared void and no validity as against their rights in the property covered the contract. It claimed in the demurrer that the original agreement sell and transfer the defendant Thaggard was suspended for three years, which time has not yet arirved, and custom english essays that the only right the orators in the cross-bill could demand would that they permitted enforce their rights at the expiration the three years from the time mak-, ing the supplementary agreement but a careful examination that agreement does not show that the parties the second part agreed to continue the time for the delivery the lands ail lands, but limited such extension such lands as the party the first part shall not have turpentined. There no allegation that there are parts the lands which have been turpentined, or upon which the turpentining has been completed but suçh question remains indefinite and uncertain. Under the allegations the original bill the court has taken possession the prpperty the appointment a receiver, and the business the defendant Thaggard being conducted him.
There a knock at the door.
Somebody knocks at the door.
Go and see who Go and open the door.
It Mr. Good morning you. I very glad see you. I very happy see you. I have not seen you this age. You are quite a stranger. treat seated. Do, treat, sit down. Please sit down. Give a chair Mr. Fetch a seat.