clear space clear space clear space white space
 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, Volume 2, Page 2   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
clear space clear space clear space white space


A party may be arrested under an attachment anywhere, out of, as well as
in the county of his residence. A plaintiff, after a decree in his favor

the common property as will constitute a conversion, and enable a plaintiff
to support trover against a party who is jointly interested with him in the
common property. When there has been a destruction of the joint property
by one of the parties, the other may in this action recover compensation for
his share, and trover also lies for a sale of the chattel by one of the owners
against the other. Winner v. Penniman, 35 Md. 165. And trover lies for
the conversion of chases in action as well as for other personal property.

The vendee of a co-tenant has no greater title than his vendor. Freeman
Co-Tenancy, 311. If one tenant in common of a chattel sell it. it is an ouster
and conversion, and his co-tenant may follow it in the hands of a purchaser,
or recover its value from such wrong-doer. Cemmn's Appeal, 79 Pa. St. 2SO.
One part-owner of a chattel may sue a third party in trover or trespass for
his proportionate share, and unless a plea in abatement be interposed, re-
cover the same. Harker v. Dement, 9 Gill, 8. A joint owner cannot dis-
charge himself of his responsibility in case of the loss of the thing by show-
ing that he has bestowed on it the same care which he bestowed on his
separate property, but is bound to show that he took of it that care which
men ordinarily take of their property. Guiilot v. Dossat, 4 Martin, 203;
Sheldon v. Skinner, 4 Wend. 525.

Where two persons jointly purchase a chattel, the presumption is that
each paid one-half of the purchase money, and were tenants in common. If
one of the parties die, the other is not entitled to the whole by survivorship.
Gibbons v. Riley, 7 Gill, 82. Stock on a farm held by two persons jointly
does not, upon the death of one joint tenant, pass to the survivor to the ex-
clusion of the representatives of the deceased. Dorsey v. Dorsey, 4 H. &
McH. 231. An agreement between landlord and tenant that the former is
to have one-half of the crops, creates a joint interest in the same. Ferrall
v. Kent, 4 Gill. 309. Where negroes were bequeathed to one for life "then
to be an equal division between the rest of my heirs," it was held that the
heirs took as tenants in common. Dashiett v. Dashiell, 2 H. & G. 137. Cf.
Gilpin v. Hollingsworth, 3 Md. 190. If three or more persons, not partners
in trade, purchase a vessel, they hold the same as tenants in common. Mil-
burn v. Guyther, 8 Gill, 92; Coursin's Appeal. 79 Pa. St. 220. As to creation
of a joint tenancy, with right of survivorship, see Rev. Code. Art. 45, sec. 3.

Joint property in the possession of one of the owners may be seized and
sold under a fieri facias against him only; and the purchaser's right will be
complete to the extent of the interest of him against whom execution issued.
McElderry v. Flannagan, 1 H. & G. 308. One of two tenants in common of
chattels naturally severable, (such as grain,) may sever and appropriate,
without the consent of the other, the quantity to which he is entitled; and
the share of such tenant in common, if not exempt, may be severed and
seized by his creditor on execution. Newton v. Howe, 29 Wise. 531.

"Although the inception of the equitable jurisdiction for the partition of
chattels is not traceable with certainty, the jurisdiction itself ia unques-
tioned', and where a literal partition is not practicable, the Court will order
a sale." 3 Pomeroy Eq. Jur. sec. 1391. See, to the same effect in addition to
the cases there cited: Hewitt's Case, 3 Bland, 184: Andrews v. Setts, 8 Hun,
323; Rev. Code, Art. 66, sec. 2. Upon a bill for a partition of chattels by one
tenant in common against another, where the facts constitute a clear case of
the use and enjoyment of the property to the entire exclusion of the com-


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, Volume 2, Page 2   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  

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

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives