| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 391 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
McDOWELL VS. GOLDSMITH. 391 relying upon the fraud to excuse his delay, can only do so suc- cessfully when the fraud has been concealed from him. And cases are numerous to show that this is the true doctrine. In a note to Pickering vs. Lord Stamford, 2 Fez. Jr., 272, several cases are referred to, establishing the proposition, that in cases of fraud and mistake, the statute of limitations begins to run from the time of the discovery of the fraud or mistake. Such was said by Chancellor Kent to be the settled rule in Chancery, in the case of Kane vs. Bloodgood, 7 Johns. Ch. Rep., 122. The language there used is, "that after the discovery of the fact imputed as fraud, the statute runs as in other cases." It cannot be necessary to multiply authorities upon this point, be- cause it is believed, no case can be found, in which relief has been extended to a party in equity in opposition to the statute of limitations, upon the ground of fraud, when the fact imputed as fraud, was discovered by the party at a period beyond the time allowed by the statute for the assertion of his rights. This being the rule, I do not see upon what principle the complainants, Walter Crook, Hyde & Easter, Hamilton Easter & Company, and Harrison & Company, can escape the objec- tion of the statute. They came in for the first time, on the 1st of April, 1851, when the amended bill was filed, and then, more than double the period allowed by the statute of limita- tions had elapsed since the maturity of their claims. Their claims are of a legal nature, cognizable in a court of law, and consequently this court is bound by the provisions of the statute, equally, and to the same extent as if they were attempting to recover them in a court of law. If they seek to get rid of the statute upon the ground of fraud, the answer is, that the deed of the 16th of February, 1844, the imputed act of fraud, was re- corded on the day of its date, which is constructive notice to all the world. But in addition to these views of the subject, it seems to me, the case is concluded by the decree of the Court of Appeals of this state, in the case of the Farmers' Bank of Maryland vs. Benjamin Mullikin et al; passed at December term, 1840. In that case, certain deeds were declared to be fraudulent against |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 391 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