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
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 1, Page 122   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

122 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

until the right was rendered perfect, which, it was then
believed, would be six weeks from the time they took posses-
sion, according to Mr. Owings' promise." And in another
place: "all parties were apprised of the alleged defect in the
title, and possession was given under the provisional arrange-
ment for a tenancy." The latter, who had conducted the
negotiations for the defendants, said: "the object of this
arrangement was, to secure to them, (the defendants,) the right
to withdraw from the property, without being hampered by it
as purchasers, in case the title could not be perfected in a rea-
sonable time." He also said, that in consequence of complain-
ant's failure to dispel the cloud which enveloped the title, the
defendants, prior to February, 1846, requested him to notify
the complainant of their intention to quit, which he did. No
evidence was adduced by the complainant to prove the accept-
ance by the defendants of the terms of his alleged proposal,
or to show, that their entry into possession was done in pur-
suance of this arrangement, if proved, or in part performance
thereof:]

THE CHANCELLOR:

This, therefore, is a bill, to enforce the specific performance
of a parol agreement in relation to lands; and the complainant
rests his right to a decree upon the ground of a part perform-
ance of the agreement; and there can be no doubt that if he
has succeeded in proving an agreement; and in showing it to
have been in part performed, that he is entitled to have it
specifically executed. Moale vs. Buchanan etal. 11 G. & J.,
314.

This right is founded not upon the notion, that part perform-
ance is a compliance with the statute of frauds; but upon the
ground, that such part performance, takes the case entirely out
of the statute. The part performance relied upon in this case,
is the delivery of possession, and it is indispensable that such
delivery to, and taking possession by the defendant, is referrible
to the contract alleged in the bill, and not to a distinct, 9( dif-
ferent title, io. 323.



 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 1, Page 122   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  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives