clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Brantly's annotated Bland's Reports, Chancery Court 1809-1832
Volume 198, Page 338   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

338 DORSEY v. CAMPBELL.—1 BLAND.

bring into this Court, to be paid to them, the sum of eight hun-
dred and twenty-two dollars and seventy-eight cents, with inte-
rest thereon from the first day of December, 1822.

at the rate of eight dollars per acre. The bill prays for a conveyance of the
lands, or in case a good title cannot be obtained, or there should be a defi-
ciency, that the $1,300 may be paid back. As the proceedings stand under
the amended bill, the Chancellor does not perceive, that there is any defect
of title, but is of opinion that justice may be done to the parties by decree-
ing mutual conveyances, and also by compelling the complainant to pay for
the excess. A plot has been returned under the order of the Court, by
which the excess appears to be 62 acres, making at $8, 496. From which
the $26 agreed on. being deducted the sum due is 8470. No exception has been
made to the survey so returned; and therefore it is taken as the proper evi-
dence for ascertaining the quantity. The complainant Long, having had
the use of this excess of land, a claim for interest might on that account be
made, but inasmuch as Gorsuch did not take any measures to have the land
surveyed, and difficulties arose as to the title, it is deemed improper to allow
such interest.

It is thereupon decreed, that the complainant. John Long, do on or before
the tenth day of April next, pay to the defendant Richard Gorsuch. or bring
into this Court to be paid to him, the sum of four hundred and seventy dol-
lars, and that he pay legal interest on the said sum from the said 10th of
April, 1815, if the principal should not then be paid. And also that the said
complainant John Long, do by a good and sufficient deed to be executed and
acknowledged according to law, convey to the defendant, his heirs or assigns,
all that messuage or tenement in the agreement exhibited, dated the 8th of
November, 1800, mentioned lying and being in that part of the City of Bal-
timore, called Fell's Point, fronting thirty feet on Anne street, and sixty
feet on Lancaster alley, thence with the division line of said tract thirty
feet, and thence with a straight line to the first place of beginning of the
first thirty feet.

And it is further decreed, that the defendants, Richard Gorsuch and John
Gorsuch, do by a good and sufficient deed to be executed and acknowledged
according to law, convey to the complainant John Long, in fee simple, two
hundred and twelve acres of land in Baltimore County, known by the name
of Charles' Mistake, and the Resurvey on Cockpit, the same being the land
mentioned in the agreement of the 8th of November, 1800, as containing
150 acres, together with the excess of 62 acres, appearing on the survey
returned to the Court, the part called the Resurvey on the Cockpit, being
called therein Ellis' Folly. The said conveyance to be made on the pay-
ment or bringing in of the sum of 470 dollars, with the interest thereon as
hereinbefore decreed. The parties respectively to pay their own costs.

A copy of this decree having been served on the plaintiff as then required
by the Act of 1785, ch. 72, e. 25, and the amount not having been paid by
him; on the petition of the defendant Richard Gorsuch, a fieri facias was
issued in his favor, against the plaintiff on the 31st of August, 1816, which
was returned by the sheriff of Baltimore County, nulla bona.

The Act of 1785, ch. 72, s. 21, declares, that in all cases the defendant may
exhibit interrogatories to the plaintiff, which shall be answered by him, &c.
A similar enactment in Kentucky has been so construed, that such inter-
rogatories are in all respects regarded as a cross-bill, and as superseding the
necessity of filing such a bill as well in cases, like this, for a specific per-
formance as in all others. Wilson v. Bodley, 2 Litt. Rep. 57.

 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Brantly's annotated Bland's Reports, Chancery Court 1809-1832
Volume 198, Page 338   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives