| Volume 98, Page 103 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
present session, and the civil list and annual expences of government,
except the journal of
On motion, the question was put, That the bill to vest certain powers in the corporation of George-town, in Montgomery county, be reconsidered? Resolved in the affirmative. Upon reconsideration, the question was put, That the said bill do pass? The yeas and nays being required, appeared as follow:
On motion, Leave given to bring in a further supplement to the act for the better administration of justice in the several counties in this state. ORDERED, That Mr. Warfield, Mr. Hyland and Mr. Perry, be a committee to prepare and bring in the same. Mr. Taney, from the committee, delivers to the speaker the following report: THE committee to whom was referred the petition and memorial of Rebecca Dulany, report, that Daniel Dulany, the late husband of the petitioner, in his life-time, being seized in fee of a large real estate in Baltimore and Frederick counties, by deeds, duly executed, acknowledged and recorded, in the years seventeen hundred and seventy-two, and seventeen hundred and seventy-three, conveyed sundry tracts and parcels of land, and other real property in the said counties, to his son Daniel Dulany, junior, whose real estate, consisting of the property so conveyed to him as aforesaid by his said father, has since been confiscated by the laws of this state, and sold by the commissioners, intendant and different agents, to the amount of eighty-one thousand five hundred and two pounds nineteen shillings and ten-pence halfpenny; of this sum the lands in Frederick county sold for fifty-seven thousand seven hundred and forty-six pounds four shillings and four-pence halfpenny; your committee further report, that at the time of making the above-mentioned conveyances by the said Daniel Dulany to his son, the petitioner was the wife of the aforesaid Daniel Dulany, the elder, who departed this life on or about the twenty-fifth day of March, seventeen hundred and ninety-seven, and that the petitioner, not having joined in or acknowledged the above-mentioned conveyances, nor having in any manner, to the knowledge of your committee, relinquished her right of dower in the lands; and other real property, thereby conveyed, is now entitled to recover her dower in whole of the said estate. It further appears to your committee, that the property in Baltimore county, in which the petitioner claims dower, was sold under a law passed in the year seventeen hundred and eighty-four, chapter 54; that in the said law there is no clause which obliges the state to warrant the property to the purchaser, and consequently the state is not answerable in case the petitioner should recover dower; but as to the property in Frederick county, contained in the deed from Daniel Dulany the elder to his son, it was sold under an act of assembly passed in the year seventeen hundred and eighty-four, chapter 23, and by that act the state expressly warrants the property to the purchasers, and must therefore be ultimately answerable, should Rebecca Dulany recover her dower in that property, and would be bound to reimburse the damages sustained by the purchasers by the recovery of such dower; your committee are therefore of opinion, that the state ought to compromise |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings of the House of Delegates, 1799
| Volume 98, Page 103 View pdf image (33K) |
|
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.
Maryland State Archives