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

364 HIgH COURT OF CHANCERY.
The Auditor filed his report on the 28th of September, 1847,
and on the 13th of November, 1848, at the final hearing of the
cause, the following opinion was delivered :]
THE CHANCELLOr:
This case having been submitted on the part of the complain-
ant, and the solicitors of the parties having presented their
views, in writing, the proceedings have been read and consider-
ed by the Chancellor.
It appears, that upon a bill filed by the defendants, as admin-
istrators, with the will annexed, of Alexander Forsyth, against
Rachael Forsyth, certain property was decreed to be sold, and
the complainants in that case, being appointed trustees to make
the sale, sold the same, and that Rachael Forsyth represented
by the complainant in this case, became the purchaser. That by
the report of the Auditor in the first case, there appeared to be
due the said Rachael, the sum of $1,208 76, which report was
ratified by the Chancellor's order, passed on the 10th of March,
1837, and this bill is filed to enforce the payment of the sum.
The answer of the defendants in this case, and the evidence,
shows that Rachael Forsyth did not comply with the terms of
sale, and that the property was subsequently sold by her, through
an agent, to Mrs. Helena Stewart, with an agreement that the
purchase money should be applied to the payment of incum-
brances and other debts due by the said Rachael Forsyth, and
that these incumbrances and debts exceed by $233 40, the
sum which had been awarded her in the case first mentioned,
so that, in point of fact, she has been overpaid that sum. It is
objected, to be sure, that this agreement being by parol, is void
under the statute of frauds, but even if the statute would, under
-any circumstances, apply to such an agreement (which is not
admitted) the acts of part performance by the defendants in the
the case, would clearly take it out of its operation. It would
be making the statute an instrument of fraud, to allow it to de-
feat an agreement which 'has been performed to the extent to
which this has been.

 
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 364   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