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

CHAPMAN VS. HOSKINS. ^95
It is urged, however, that the owner of "Craney Island" has
no right of exclusive fishing in these waters, and this is certain-
ly true. But Mr. Hoskins does not require a patent from the
.state, to secure him in the privilege of participating in this
right. It exists independently of patent, and may be enjoyed
by him in common with other citizens.
Again, the counsel for Mr. Hoskins call to their aid the rule
of the land office, that in doubtful cases it is usual to let the
patent issue. This is believed to be the general rule, because
as the decision of the Chancellor, on a caveat, is final, without
appeal, if he refuses the patent, the party applying for it is con-
cluded; whereas, if the question can be left open after the patent
has issued, so as to be brought before a court of law, in an
action of ejectment, or in some other way, or before a Court
of Chancery by a scire facias, to vacate the patent; the effect
is to give the party the benefit of an appeal, which in case of
difficulty or importance, is entitled to consideration. But if
from the nature and circumstances of the case, the decision of
the Chanceller upon the caveat, must be final either way, or at
least if there is no ready or convenient mode of bringing the
questions decided by him before a court of law, or equity, so
as to subject his judgment to revision before a superior tribu-
nal, then, as I conceive, it is his duty to decide the case upon
the best judgment he can form, and the rule which has been
mentioned is inapplicable.
This case, it appears to me, is one of that description; be-
cause I do not see how it is possible to try the efficacy or va-
lidity of the patent, if one issues, either in an action of ejectment,
or in any other form of action, in a court of law, or by scire
facias, or information in a court of equity. It is clear, I think,
that Mr. Chapman could not bring an action for the land includ-
ed in this survey, so long as it is covered by water, because
whilst so covered, he has no possessory right thereto^ nor could
the sheriff put him in possession. Neither could Hoskins insti-
tute such a proceeding against Chapman, because the latter is
not in possession, nor in its present situation, does he claim
any exclusive title to it. His position being, that so long as it

  		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 495   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  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives