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
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 31   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

CHISHOLM VS. PERRY. 31
remained in the state, subject to be disposed of in the mode in
which lands liable to escheat may be disposed of according to
the law and rules of the land office.
Submitting, therefore, to the judgment of the Court of Ap-
peals, as all inferior tribunals are bound to do, I consider it my
duty to overrule these caveats. It is, thereupon, adjudged and
ordered that the caveats in these cases be, and the same are
hereby dismissed, but that each party pay his own costs.
JNO. M. BREWER, for the Caveators.
THOS. PERRY, for the Caveatees.
ARCHIBALD CHISHOLM
vs.
THOMAS PERRY.
GEORGE SMITH
vs.
NELSON BAKER.
LAND OFFICE, 29th OF JULY, 1851.
[PRACTICE IN THE LAND OFFICE——EVIDENCE.]
THERE is no rule of the land office which requires that a caveat shall be dis-
missed because the caveator did not show an interest in the matter in dispute.
The judge may on caveat or on application for a patent, where there is no cav-
eat, refuse a patent on account of a violation of the rules of the said office.
Plats authenticated by the signature of the county surveyor, and returned un-
der the orders of the court, must be treated as evidence and have weight
accordingly.
[The facts of these cases are sufficiently stated in the opinion
of the Chancellor.]
THE CHANCELLOR :
There being no dispute about the law of the land office appli-
cable to these cases, the only question is, whether the caveatees,
by competent evidence, have established the fact that these cer-
tificates include distinct parcels of land not contiguous to each
other. If they have succeeded in doing this, it follows, of
course, that the caveats must be ruled good.
It is, to be sure, said, in the argument of the counsel for

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 31   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  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives