| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 282 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
282 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. the loss should fall upon that oys whose act has occasioned the calamity. Now, can there be" a reasonable doubt, that the act of the defendant, Griffith, in gratifying the defendant, Schley, in what is called a natural desire of avoiding the mortification of having the condition of his affairs exposed to the knowledge of the citizens of Baltimore, has caused a "heavy loss to the complainants, Mrs. Duncan and Mrs-, Handy ? Upwards of twelve thousand dollars of this trust money was received by him, in the months of October, and November, 1846, when the probabilities are very strong, if the desperate condi- tion of his affairs, as disclosed by these mortgages, had been known, steps would have been taken in time to prevent the receipt of the money by him. The object of Griffith, as he says, was to gratify Schley in this very natural desire, but surely he had no right to indulge himself in this way at the ex- pense of third persons. If he must indulge Mr. Schley in such desires, it would seem to be no more than even handed justice, that he should do so at his own risk. The point presented, then, by this record, so far as this per- sona] property is concerned, is this, can a party be permitted to take a bill of sale, or mortgage of chattels from another for his own security, leave the mortgagor in possession, and osten- sibly the owner, and at his request, and to keep the public from a knowledge of its existence, withhold it from record for an in- definite period, renewing it periodically, and then receive the benefit of it by placing the last renewal upon the record when impelled by considerations affecting his own safety, and to the prejudice of others whom the possession and ostensible owner- ship of that very property by the mortgagor may have induced to confide in him. Such certainly should not be the law, and nothing short of the most controlling authority would induce me so to decide. This is not a case, it is to be borne in mind, in which the omis- sion to record the deed was the result of accident or mistake, but the case of a wilful and deliberate purpose, persevered in for mote than fourteen months; a purpose at war, as I con- ceive, with the letter and spirit of the registration laws, and a |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 282 View pdf image (33K) |
|
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.
Maryland State Archives