| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 386 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
386 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. appreciation of the property in the interval, There is, more- over, something suspicious in the account given by the defend- ant, of this transaction, and in his statement of the motives by which he was influenced, as he says, in making the purchase. He speaks of further advances made by him to Mrs. Osborne, subsequent to the date of the mortgage, which, with his claim for interest on the mortgage debt, amounted, as he says, on the day the deed of February, 1844, was executed, to $3,250, and that on that day, he paid her in money, the sum of $4,600, making the aggregate sum of $7,750, which, he says, formed the consideration of the deed, and was the full value of the equity of redemption, and more than be would have given therefor, under other circumstances. The court does not see, in these circumstances, any reason or motive, to induce the de- fendant to give more for the property, than he would, as he de- clares, otherwise have been disposed to give. He had a de- cree for his mortgage debt, securing the payment of principal and interest, at the stipulated period, and if he had made the mortgagor further advances, as he states, that furnished no reason why he should advance in cash the large additional sum of $4,500, to acquire the title. Lenders of money, say the Court of Appeals, in the case of Dougherty vs. McColgan, 6 Gill of Johns., 281, "being less under the pressure of circumstances, calculated to control the free exercise of judgment, than bor- rowers, they may often be tempted to avail themselves* of that advantage, in order to attain inequitable bargains." The lean- ing of courts of equity, is therefore against them, and presump- tions are not made in their favor. In this case, all the advan- tages of position were with the defendant. He had a mortgage and decree for a large sum of money, and there is no circum- stance, connected with the transaction, which would induce a man of ordinary prudence, to give more for the property, than his unbiased opinion would prompt him to give. The case, moreover, is singularly defective in evidence, in regard to the payment of the consideration, by the defendant, and his refus- ing to answer, respecting bis means to command such large sums, is certainly a circumstance from which unfavorable infer- ences may be drawn. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 386 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