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

BEARD VS. LINTHICUM. 347

and havfe a final adjustment of fhe contract as soon as the con-
sent of Stewart could be obtained; that he accordingly did
enter upon the land and occupied the same, (though he did not
consider himself a purchaser thereof,) but that Beard never had
procured the consent of said Stewart, or settled the disputes
relative to the boundaries of the land; that he never had agreed
to mortgage any negroes to secure the payment of the purchase
money of the land; that the negroes alluded to belonged to his
mother; and that he had no intention of removing himself or
the negroes out of the state.

The answer of Stewart, who was made a defendant, stated
that he never would have sanctioned so loose a contract as that
charged in the bill, and that he had himself instituted a suit in
chancery to obtain a sale of the lands in question, to satisfy his
claim.

Certain testimony was afterwards taken, the effect of which
will appear from the Chancellor's opinion; and afterwards an
agreement was. filed to amend the bill, (if the Chancellor would
have authorized such an amendment,) by striking out the alle-
gation in regard to the interest which bad become due since
the purchase from George H. Stewart.

The case having been submitted at this term, the Chancellor
delivered the following opinion :]

THE CHANCELLOR:

This is a bill for the specific performance of a parol contract to
sell land, and the contract being denied by the answers, and
the statute of frauds insisted on, an effort has been made, on
the part of the plaintiffs, to take the case out of the statute of
frauds by proving acts of part performance.

It has been repeatedly remarked by eminent judges that the
disposition which at one time existed, to relax the statute of
frauds, should be opposed, and that the courts should take a
stand against any further encroachment upon its provisions, and
not go beyond the rules and precedents already established.

Such was the language of Chancellor Kent in Philips vs.
Thompson, 1 Johns. Ch. Rep., 131, and such I am persuaded



 
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 347   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