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 607   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

21 JAC. 1, CAP. 16, LIMITATIONS. 607
trustee till the death of the cestui que trust, and e converse; as where a
slave was conveyed in trust for the use of A. for life, and, after her death,
in trust that the trustee should convey the slave to B., neither B. nor the
trustee being entitled to the possession during A's life, it was determined
that the possession of the negro during A.'s life by the trustee, the de-
fendant, under a claim of title, would not bar B. without knowledge on
his part of the claim and adverse possession by the trustee for more than
three years before suit brought, Hume v. Pumphrey, 4 Gill, 181. And the
same principle applies where the defendant's possession commenced by
permission of the plaintiff without any transfer of property, as in cases of
a lending, which resemble contracts of hiring, see Callis v. Tolson, 6 G. & J.
80; Cole v. Hebb, 7 G. & J. 20; -where the plaintiff must have such knowledge
of the adverse claim of the defendant, and of such acts on his part as would
be an invasion of the plaintiff's rights and give him a cause of action,
which failing to prosecute within the time limited by law, he would be
presumed to have surrendered, Abell v. Harris, 11 G. & J. 367; in actions
brought by an executor within the time of limitations, such knowledge
must be proved on the part of the testator, ibid.; and an instruction was
held bad in Cole v. Hebb supra, where the plaintiff was administrator d. b. n.,
and the knowledge of the claim was restricted by the terms of the instruc-
tion to the testator and the plaintiff, without noticing the intermediate
executor; and there the return of the property in question as that of the
intestate of defendants to the assessor of taxes, and to the Orphans Court
in the inventory, was considered not enough to bar the plaintiff. See, how-
ever, Belt v. Marriott, 9 Gill, 338, where the rule was said not to extend
to the case of a forfeiture of the title to a slave under the Act of 1817,
ch. 112, and notice to the reversioner held not necessary to divest his
rights by possession, the Court distinguishing Callis v. Tolson and Hume
v. Pumphrey. The purchaser of land and those claiming under him with
notice are treated as trustees for the unpaid purchase-money, and their
possession for over twenty years is not adverse to the vendor,'0 nor is
his equitable lien defeated by the bar by limitations of a legal right of
action on a security he may have taken for the purchase money, Magruder
v. Peter, 11 G. & J. 217, vide infra. So, though limitations run against
trusts created by construction of law, McDowelI v. Goldsmith, 6 Md. 319,
but not against trusts under the insolvent laws, Classen's Appeal in Re
Leiman, 32 Md. 225, and trusts ceasing to be continuing and subsisting,
or expiring by their own limitation, or ended by the act of the parties,
Green v. Johnson, 3 G. & J. 389, and against quasi-trusts, as where a
party so receiving money ought to pay it over immediately upon its re-
ceipt, see Barry v. Pierson, 1 Gill, 234, they do not apply in express tech-
nical trusts, as in Mitchell v. Mitchell, 29 Md. 581, where the complainant
and defendant were alternately trustee and cestui que trust.11 Indeed,
10
But see B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Trimble, 51 Md. 110 and note 37 infra.
11
Trustee and cestui que trust.—As between trustee and cestui que trust,
neither limitations nor laches apply to an express, subsisting and recog-
nized trust, except in cases where the trustee sets up an open, public,
adverse claim against his beneficiary and denies that the trust any longer
exists, or where he recognizes another person as beneficiary. Needles v.

 
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 607   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