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

DOUB VS. BARNES. 131

the state of facts alleged, it would not be necessary for the pur-
chasers to see to the application of the purchase money; credit
being given to the trustees, and they being known to be alone
looked to for the payment of the judgments by the proceeds of
sale." And the court go on to say, that a defence, founded
upon the circumstances stated, could only be made available in
a court of equity upon the ground of fraud.

[Passing over the judgments of Lynch and Craft—the Court
of Appeals having decided in their favor—the Chancellor con-
tinued:]

The attention of the court is now confined to the judgments
which have been assigned to, and marked for the use of Mar-
garet A. Mason, short copies of which are to be found in the
complainant's exhibit C, filed with his bill; and the question
is, whether these judgment creditors, the parties who assigned
to her, did assent to the deed of trust to Price and Yost, and
by their conduct induce the complainant and others to become
purchasers of the lands bound by the judgments, and to believe
that they would look to the trustees for the payment of their
claims, and not to the liens created by them ?

In other words, that these judgment creditors, knowing and
assenting to the terms of the deed, were willing to abandon
wholly their liens on the lands conveyed by it, and to look ex-
clusively to the trustees; and by their conduct, indicative of
such willingness, the complainant and others were induced to
purchase.

This, the Court of Appeals say, would constitute an equita-
ble defence against the judgments; as to permit them to be
enforced under such circumstances would be to tolerate the per-
petration of a fraud against the purchasers. Upon the bill
which made this case, the complainant displayed an equity
which entitled him to an injunction, which could only be dis-
solved by positive contradictory averments in the answer; and
as the answer of John Thompson Mason was founded upon
hearsay, and not personal knowledge, it was not regarded as
sufficient to remove the complainant's equity; though, resting
upon information derived from others, it contained denials of



 
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 131   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