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

DOUB VS. BARNES. 135

all the creditors would come into the arrangement. And the
circumstance that a portion of the creditors did not so assent,
is evidence that the purchasers bought upon their faith in the
ability of the trustees to assure them good titles, without the
assent of the judgment creditors. For it is not to be sup-
posed, if they required the assent of some, that they would
have been satisfied with anything short of the assent of all;

and the assent of all they certainly did not procure. With re-
gard especially to the complainant, there is, independently of
inferential reasoning, strong grounds for supposing that his;

confidence in Mr. Yost, one of the trustees, induced him to
rely exclusively upon his, Yost's, judgment, in regard to the
title; and that he was not acting upon impressions founded
upon the acts of the judgment creditors.

It has been already remarked, that the principal purchase
made by the complainant was only a few months after .the date
of the deed, and, therefore, with respect to that purchase, no
inference in support of it can be made from delay, or from sus-
pension of proceedings on the part of the creditors; though it
is expressly stated by the Court of Appeals, that the rights of
the creditors would not be prejudiced by such suspension, if
they always looked to their judgments, and not to the deed of
trust, for satisfaction; and the evidence of Mr. Gordon is ex-
plicit, that the bank never was asked to agree to the provisions
of the deed, nor never gave him authority to do so, and 'that he
always looked to the payment of the judgments in the order of
their priority, and as liens on the property.

I am, therefore, of opinion, that with regard to the judg-
ments to which Mrs. Mason has acquired title from the Bank
of Baltimore, the complainant has not succeeded in establish-
ing the facts which, according to the opinion of the Court of
Appeals, would entitle him to relief against them by injunc-
tion.

The next inquiry relates to the judgments at suit of Henry
Tiffany, and William Tiffany and others, which were also as-
signed to Mrs. Mason.

It appears, that on the 8th of July, 1840, receipts were given



 
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 135   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