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

DUVALL VS. MYERS. 401
awarded to the said plaintiff, and that the defendant restore
and deliver up, to her, the real and personal estate of which
she was the owner, or to which she had title at the time of her
marriage with the said defendant, and of which the said defend-
ant is now in possession, or which may be under his control,
to be held and enjoyed by her, separately, and in the same
right, and by the same title as said property was held and en-
joyed by her prior to her intermarriage with the said defendant.
And it is further adjudged, ordered and decreed, that the money
deposited in court, to the credit of this cause, be paid to the
said plaintiff, to be held and received by her, as she would
have held, received and enjoyed the same, if she had been
sole and unmarried at the time the said money was recovered
or paid, as stated in the proceedings in this cause. And it is
further adjudged, ordered and decreed, that the defendant pay
to the plaintiff the costs of this suit, to be taxed by the Register,
but -for the reasons stated the prayer for alimony is overruled.
BRICE T. B. WORTHINGTON for Complainant.
A. RANDALL for Defendant.
CHARLES R. DUVALL
vs. July TERM, 1850.
HENRY MYERS.
[SPECIFIC EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS—MUTUALITY—PAST PERFORMANCE.]
IT is a conceded principle, that the jurisdiction of a court of equity, to decree
the specific execution of contracts, is not a matter of right in the parties, and
to be demanded ex debite justitia;; but applications invoking this power of
the court, are addressed to its sound and reasonable discretion, and are
granted or rejected according to the circumstances of each case.
The court must be satisfied that the contract sought to be enforced, is fair and
just and reasonable, and equal in all its parts; and it is now established,
that unless there is to be found in the contract the, essential ingredient of
mutuality, a court of equity will not compel its specific execution.
The right to a specific execution of a contract, so far as the question of mutu-
ality is concerned, depends upon whether the agreement itself is obligatory upon
both parties, so that upon the application of either, against the other, the
court would coerce a specifiic performance.
35*

  		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 401   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