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
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
Volume 194, Page 162   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

162 13 E- 1. STAT. 1, CAP. 22, WASTE.
an action of trover was brought by the appellee by his next friend, who in
fact was his guardian, regularly appointed and qualified, and it was ob-
jected that the latter and not the infant was the party to sue But the
Court held that the right of possession of the chattel in dispute, which is
the gist of the action in trover, was common both to the guardian and in-
fant, the right in the first instance resulting from the special property in
the chattel by virtue of the guardianship, and in the second from the gen-
eral property in the real owner, and that the action might be brought either
by the genera] or special owner. In Hay v. Conner, 2 H. & J. 347, the
right of the infant to sue in trover by prochein ami who was also affirmed,
where the mother, the natural guardian, was before the Court, the natural
guardian in the absence of a statutory guardian being invested with as full
a power to sue as the other, Fridge v. State, 3 G. & J. 103.
It may be observed also that the minority of females for the purposes
of suit, extends to the age of twenty-one years, see Davis v. Jacquin, supra.;
Keller v. Donnelly, 5 Md. 211; Fridge v. State, supra..0
As to the rule in Equity, see Alexander's Chancery Pr. 211; Hunter v.
Hatton, 4 Gill, 115; Richards v. Swann, 7 Gill, 306; Barnes v. Compton, 8
Gill, 391; Higgins v. Horwitz, 9 Gill, 341.7
f Hussey v. Ryan, 64 Md. 426, 437.
' Bush v. Linthicum, 59 Md. 345, 356; Biddinger v. Wiland, 67 Md. 359;
Willis v. Hodson, 79 Md. 327; Prince de Beam v. Winans, 115 Md.—.
Gen. Eq. Rules 9 and 10, Code 1911, Art. 16, secs. 146, 147; Miller's Equity,
secs. 10 et seq.
CAP. XXII.
Waste maintainable by one Tenant in common against another,

Whereas two or mo do
hold Wood. Turfland. or Fish-
ing, or other such thing in
common, wherein none know-
eth his several, and some of
them do Waste against the
Minds of the other, an Action
may lie by a Writ of Waste;
124* (2) and when it is come
unto Judgment, the Defendant
shall choose either to take his
part in a Place certain, by the
Sheriff, and by the View, Oath,
Cum duo vel plures ten cant
boscum turbariam piscariam
vel alia hujusmodi in conununi
absque hoc quod aliquis sciat
suum separale & aliquis eorum
faciat vastum contra volunta-
tem alterius moveatur actio
per breve de Vasto & ha-
beat defendens cum ad Judi-
cium venerit electionem ca-
piendi partem suam in certo
loco per vicecomitem & visum
& sacramentum ac assignation-

 

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
Volume 194, Page 162   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  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives