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 2, Page 278   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

278 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
AIleghany county, was recorded on the 27th of May, 1845. It
also appears, that the mortgage of the personal estate of Schley
was not recorded, but was renewed from time to time, at pe-
riods generally within, but occasionally after an interval of
more than twenty days, from the 22d of March, 1845, to the
4th of June, 1846, which last mortgage executed on that day
was recorded on the 18th of the same month and year.
The state of the account and the amount of the liabilities of
the defendant Griffith, for the defendant Schley appears to have
fluctuated from the origin of this transaction, in March, 1845,
to the 4th of September of the same year, but no new respon-
sibility seems to have been incurred after this latter period, and
in the last mortgage of the 4th of June, 1846, all of the notes
indorsed by Griffith, at different times up to, and inclusive of,
those indorsed on the 4th of September, 1845, are recited and
secured to be paid.
The plaintiff in his bill alleges, that it was a part of the orig-
inal agreement of these parties, mortgagor and mortgagee, that
the instruments in question should not be put upon record, but
that they should be kept secret, and yet that the mortgagor
should retain possession of the property, to the end that he
might be believed to be the owner thereof, to the great preju-
dice of the said cestui que trusts.
The answer of the defendant, Griffith, upon this point, denies
that the deeds were withheld from the record, in consequence of
any agreement between Schley and himself, or for the purpose of
keeping the existence of them secret, or that he, the defendant,
knew or suspected, that Schley had any reason for desiring that
they should not be recorded, other than the natural desire of
avoiding the mortification of discovering one's temporary em-
barrassments to the society in which he daily moved, and he
averred, that his confidence in the integrity and professional at-
tainments of said Schley, assured him, that there could be no
circumstance connecteri with his pecuniary condition, to make
it improper in Schley to make, or that respondent to grant his
request in this respect.
The answer then speaks of the execution of the new mort-

  		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 2, Page 278   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