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

OLIVER VS. CATON. 297
dence counter to the proof now proposed to be offered by the
complainant will be introduced by the defendant. Indeed the
evidence already produced since the hearing, show, that there
will be no difficulty in procuring proof.
The petition, therefore, opinion of be dismissed.
The counsel in this cause whose names ehould have been in-
serted sorted in the previous report, are:
ISAAC D. JONES, and JOHN H. DONE, for Complainants.
W. W. HANDY, JOHN W. CRISFIELD and CORNELIUS Mc-
LEAN Defendants,
CHARLES OLIVER ET AL.
vs.SEPTEMBER TERM, 1847.
MARY CATON ET AL.
[REMEDY OF PURCHASES-POWER Of THE.COURT—RIGHTS Of TENANTS AND
LESSEES W POSSESSION.]
IT is well established, that this court has the power in a proper case to put
the purchaser of lands under its decrees'in possession, by an order passed
upon the petition nf the: purchaser, such an authority being deemed indis-
pensable to the full. and complete administration of justice.
But this authority is restricted to those cases in which the persons holding the
possession against the puchaser ate either'parties to the proceedings, and
whose rights are consequently determined by the decree, or persons who
come into possession pendente lite, claiming title to the land, under the partif
to the bill or some of them.
Where the party, who is in possession, acquired his title prior to the institution
of the proceedings in which the decree passed, it would be irregular and im-
proper to investigate and pass judgment upon it, in this summary manner, by
way of motion.
Occupying and lessees, claiming title under the party against whom the
decree must be made parties to the suit, if it is intended to conclude
their rights thereby; and if the existence of their rights is suggested to the
court at the hearing, it will so frame the decree, as expressly to guard them
from prejudice.
In this case, the party in possession claimed title under a lease for ninety-nine
year, renewable for ever, executed long prior to the institution of the pro-

  		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 297   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