| Joseph M. Marshall
Trial Court Records:
1870
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket, Electronic) Marshall vs. Shipley, 1870, Docket 1, no. 129, pg. 342, K-Tap CD 30024 [MSA T3521-1, 3/50/11/18]
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers) Marshall vs. Shipley, 1870, no. 129, MDHR 50,331-124/135 [MSA C70-79, 0/31/11/15]
(1) Bill, Exhibit and Subpeona, 23 March 1870
(2) Interlocutory Decree, 23 July 1870
(3) Commission to take Testimony and Exhibit, 26 July 1870
(4) Exhibit J.M.M. Copy, 27 July 1870
(5) Decree, 31 August 1870
(6) Costs
(7) Trustees Bond, 13 September 1870
(8)Case Satisfied, 14 August 1870
Mortgage Case. Marshall receives compensation for loan made to Frank and Ann E. Shipley.
1877
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket, Electronic) Farmer's National Bank of Annapolis vs. Taylor et al, 1877, Docket 2, no. 631, pg. 140, K-Tap CD 30024 [MSA T3521-1, 3/50/11/18]
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers) Farmer's National Bank of Annapolis vs. Taylor et al, 1877, no. 631, MDHR 50,331-630/635 [MSA C70-123, 0/31/11/59]
(1) Subpeonas, 1877-1878
(2) Bill of Complaint, 11 Oct. 1878
(3) Complainant's Exhibits 1-7, 11 Oct. 1878
(4) Interlocutory Decree, 3 November 1877
(5) Cash Bills, 11 March 1878
(6) Defense Exhibit, 6 April 1878
(7) Answer of Wilson and Hopkins, 6 April 1878
(8) Answer of Brown and Brown, 6 April 1878
(9) Plea to Dissmiss the Bill, 3 June 1878
(10) Answer of Annapolis Masonic Lodge No. 89, 3 June 1878
(11) Decree, 31 Aug. 1878
(12) Trustee's Bond, 2 Oct. 1878
(13) Newspaper Advertisments of Sale of Masonic Hall, Bills from Newspapers, Oct. 1878
(14) Memorandum of Cases, 26 November 1878
(15) Transaction of Costs, 5 Dec. 1878
(16) Copy Judgement, 26 Dec. 1878
Marshall involved in lease of property at Maryland Ave. and Prince George Street on which to construct Masonic Hall. Unpaid debts to bank resulted in mortgage foreclosure and sale of property and rights to lease.
1878
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket, Electronic) Rowles vs. Taylor et al, 1878, Docket 2, no. 653, p. 152, K-Tap CD 30024 [MSA T3521-1, 3/50/11/18]
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers) Rowles vs. Taylor et al, 1878, no. 653, MDHR 50,331-650/659 [MSA C70-125, 0/31/11/61]
(1) Morgage and bond, 15 Feb. 1878
(2) Mortgage of Taylor to Brundige, 15 Feb. 1878
(3) Bond of A.B. Hagner and J. Writ Randall, 2 Oct. 1878
(4) Notice of Sale, 25 Oct. 1878
(5) Petition, 25 Oct. 1878
(6) Trustee's Report, 26 Oct. 1878
(7) Mortgage and Auditor's Report, 26 Dec. 1878
(8) Petition for Appointment of a Trustee, 17 Sep. 1879
(9) Order, 17 Sep. 1879
Combined with No. 631, 1877
1879
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket, Electronic) Marshall vs. Sprogle, 1879, Docket 2, no. 73, pg. 195, K-Tap CD 30024 [MSA T3521-1, 3/50/11/18]
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers) Marshall vs. Sprogle, 1879, no. 731, MDHR 50,331-727/736 [MSA C70-132, 0/31/11/68]
(1) Brief, Exhibit 1, Writ of Injunction and Subpeonas, 1 May 1879
(2) Licenses for Manufacturing Stone, 1 May 1879
(3) Answer of Defendents, 7 May 1879
(4) Application to take Testimony, 7 May 1879
(5) Exhibit 2, 15 May 1879
(6) Bond, 17 May 1879
(7) Amount of Artificial Stone Made, 17 May 1879
(8) Letters, 17 May 1879
(9) Direcions for Making Carbureted Stone, 26 May 1879
(10) Commission, Testimony Transcription, and Five Exhibits, 26 May 1879
(11) Order, 28 May 1879
(12) Transaction of Costs, 28 May 1879
Marshall and his partner John Brady obtained a license to manufacture artificial stone patented by James L. Rowland of NY and Daniel M. Sprogle of Annapolis. It was to be an exclusive right within Anne Arundel County, on the condition of an initial payment of $100 and 10% royalty fee every six months. When Marshall and Brady claimed that too little profit forced them to pay only 5% royalty, Sprogle investigated and realized that their stone was not manufactured up to standards. He had actually set up most of their major contracts and believed that they had not taken enough effort to find new customers. When Marshall and Brady learned that Sprogle was superintending the construction of a house for Captain Silas W. Jerry of the U.S. Navy using the same patented artifical stone, they filed for a writ of injunction on 1 May 1879. The court dismissed the case on 28 May 1879 on the grounds that Marshall and Brady had continually failed to uphold their side of the agreement, and Sprogle had in fact notified them that their arrangement was null and void prior to his contract with Jerry.
On a side note, Brady began employment as a baker at the House of Correction in Jessup on 1 January 1879. This would be at the same time that Marshall was working with Frederick and the Board of Public Works on the State House, both parties having overseen the construction of the House of Correction. |
