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

BROWN VS. STEWART. 87

He is not to be deemed, as remarked by Chancellor Kent, in
Scribner vs. Hickok, a purchaser for himself of the judgment,
and to use it as if it stood in the character of a stranger to the
parties, but having satisfied it, as one of the defendants, he is
entitled only to indemnity or contribution as a co-defendant
from the other defendants.

My opinion, therefore, is, that if after deducting the sum
which was credited upon the judgment, there remains as much

•due as is equal to the amount which Hilleary has a right, upon
the principles which have been stated, to claim as contribution
from Thomas T. Wheeler, that in that case Hilleary has a right
to the use of the judgment for his indemnity, to the full amount

•of such claim.

[No appeal was taken from this decree. ]

HENRY H. BROWN

vs. SEPTEMBER TERM, 1847.
ROBERT STEWART ET AL.3

[INJUNCTION—MORTGAGE.]

IF a mortgagor, in possession, is committing waste, equity will restrain him by in-
junction.

In Maryland, unless there is some agreement of the parties to the contrary > the
mortgagee is entitled to the possession of the property immediately upon the
execution of the mortgage, without regard to whether there has been a for-
feiture or not.

But because the mortgagee may take possession of the property or recover it by
an action of replevin, he is not, on this account, precluded from the right of
having it protected in a court of equity.

The case of a mortgage forms an exception to the general rule, that a party
shall not be allowed to sue at law and in equity, for the same debt, and a
mortgagee may pursue all his remedies at once, yet he is under no obligation
to do so.

Where a mortgagee files a bill for the sale of the mortgaged property for the
satisfaction of his debt then due, and alleges that it being in the possession of
the mortgagor, has been, or is about to be, wasted; or, where it consists of
personalty, is about to be removed beyond the reach of the creditor, a court
of equity has and will exercise the power of preventing the threatened mis-
chief, by injunction.



  		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 87   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