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
Brantly's annotated Bland's Reports, Chancery Court 1809-1832
Volume 198, Volume 3, Page 51   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

BOSLEY v. SUSQUEHANNA CANAL.—3 BLAND. 49

good cause in order to have any such decree rescinded, and the case
reheard. In this case no such good cause has been shewn, and
therefore,

It is ordered, that the said petition be dismissed with costs;
and that the order suspending the execution of the deeree, be re-
scinded.

The defendants appealed, and for the manner in which the case
was disposed of by the Court of Appeals, see Wyse v. Smith, 4 G.
& J. 295.

*BOSLEY v. THE SUSQUEHANNA CANAL. 63

INJUNCTIONS.

An injunction may be granted on an ex parte application on the bill alone,
notwithstanding an apparent misnomer of the defendant corporation.
(a)

An injunction granted before answer does not order the defendant to do, or
to undo any thing.

Where a canal and its towing paths are directed to be kept in repair for the
use of the public, they must be considered as highways; and the Acts of
Assembly in relation thereto as public laws of which the Court must
take notice.

A fee simple as encumbered with a right of way.

Nothing can be deemed a breach of an injunction forbidding the disturb-
ance of a peculiar right of way which does not interfere with its free
exercise.

THIS bill was filed on the 21st of April, 1829, by James Bosley,
against The Proprietors of the Susquehanna Canal. It states, that
the defendants by a deed bearing date on the 18th of October,
1813, conveyed to Edward Wilson, three mill-site lots on the east
side of the River Susquehanna, and on the west side of the Sus-
quehanna Canal, at the tide-water locks, and delineated on a plan
made for the defendants as lots No. 5, 6 and 7, with three other
lots of land on the east side of the canal, directly opposite to those
above mentioned, and distinguished on the said plan as No. 20,
21 and 22; and also the right of taking water from the canal suffi-
cient for the working of six pair of mill-stones of six feet in diame-
ter each. In which deed from the defendants to Wilson, is a
covenant in the following words: " And it is mutually agreed
and understood by and between the parties to these presents, in
manner following, that is to say, that the towing path of twenty

(a) See Salmon v. Clagett, post, 125.
4 3B.

 

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 3, Page 51   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  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives