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

WILHELM VS. LEE. 325
manifest the remedy at law, so far as the land sold is con-
cerned, falls far short of the remedy in this court, when H is
recollected that the purchaser takes the title of the vendee,
subject to judgments, liens and outstanding equities existing
against the vendee prior to the judgment recovered by the ven-
dor under which the sale is made.
It may be, that a distinction exists between the case of a
vendor proceeding in equity to enforce his lien, after judgment
against, and sale of the sheriff under a fieri facias issued upon
it, of the vendee's interest, and the case of a mortgagee, suing
in this court, after having sold the title of the mortgagor, under
his judgment at law, recovered upon the bond or covenant; and
that, in the latter case, the title of the purchaser from the
sheriff might be overthrown, when in the former it would be
protected; but no very apparent reason is perceived for such
distinction—and Chancellor Sent, in the note already referred
to, says, the mortgagee who has sold the title of the mortga-
gor, by a proceeding at law, cannot maintain an ejectment
against the purchaser, unless the latter knew of the existence
of the mortgage, and purchased subject to it.
My opinion, therefore, is, that this case comes within the
general rule, which permits the mortgagee to sue at law upon
the bond or covenant, and in this court upon his mortgage.
He may, in the words of the late Chancellor, (Bland,) "sue on
all his remedies at the same time," though, of course, he can
have but one satisfaction of his demand. A decree will be
passed accordingly.
[The decree in this case was affirmed on appeal.]

B. T. B. WORTHINGTON and F. H. STOCKETT, for Com-
plainants.
A. RANDALL for Defendant.
9

 
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 325   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  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives