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

188 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.


The act of 1845, ch. 287, sec, 4, gives no right to a party to enforce this lien

upon the proceeds of tales of machinery
Though, a party having a lien on B building for work and materials, may come

'into apourt of law or equity for his share of the proceeds of a sale, made under

its authority, no such right is given when such proceeds arise from the sale of

machinery.

[This case was argued on exceptions to the Auditor's report,
filed on the 13th July, 1847. The claims of the exceptants
under the lien law of 1838, chap. 206, and the various supple-
ments thereto, especially those of 1845, chapters 176 and 289,
having been rejected by the Auditor, the question brought
before the court was, how far this law with its supplements ap-
plied to the case of the exceptants. The facts of the case are
sufficiently disclosed in the opinion of the Chancellor:]

THE CHANCELLOR :

The exceptions to the report of the Auditor, were submitted
to the Chancellor for his decision by an agreement of the
parties, filed on the 8th of the present month, (December, 1847.)
In pursuance of that agreement, the papers were laid before me
on the 13th, and on the 14th upon an examination of the acts of
assembly, I came to the conclusion, that the claims of Wells &
Miller, and Edward G. Dorsey, excepting creditors, could not
be supported as liens, upon the proceeds of the sale made by
the trustee in this case, and ratified the Auditor's report, by
which they were excluded.

After this decision was made, though on the same day,
written arguments in behalf of these parties, were received by
the register, who deemed it his duty, again to lay the case be-
fore me; and, in so doing, he was quite right; though it must
be apparent to all concerned, that it would be far better, and
much more satisfactory, if cases were withheld from the Chan-
cellor, until they are actually ready for decision, and if argu-
ments are to be made, they should be made before the judg-
ment of the court is asked for.

I consider it proper, now, however, to state briefly the
grounds of my opinion.



 
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 188   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  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives