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

510 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
WILLIAM McKIM,
AND
HASLETT McKIM
vs.
WILLIAM MASON
AND
THE WHITE HALL CO.
DECEMBER TERM, 1849.
[PRACTICE—PLEADINGS—COURT—MORTGAGE TO SECURE A FORFEIT.]
Joining issue upon an answer, must be regarded as a waiver of any mere
technical objection to the form in which the defences in such answer are
presented.
Pleadings in Chancery should consist of averments or allegations of fact, and
not of inference and argument.
The defence of usury may either be set up by plea, or relied upon in the
answer.
The statute against usury must be pleaded, or relied upon in. the answer, and it
will not do to state circumstances which may lead the opposite party to
infer that he is to meet that defence—this view is supported by the 1st sec-
tion of the act of 1845, ch. 352.
The consideration of the mortgage which the complainants Bought to enforce,
was a forfeit, which the mortgagor agreed to pay them in the event of his
failing, or neglecting to appoint the complainants his agents, as provided in
a certain agreement. HELD—
That this mortgage could not be enforced by this court—the rule being a uni-
versal one, that courts of equity will not lend their aid to enforce a penalty,
or forfeiture, but will leave the parties to their remedy at law.
It may be laid down as a fundamental doctrine, that equity does not assist the
recovery of a penalty, or forfeiture, or anything In the nature of a for-
feiture.
[The bill in this case was filed on the equity side of Balti-
more County Court, on the 5th of September, 1849, by the
complainants, for the sale of a certain cotton factory, and other
real estate, mortgaged by the defendant. Mason, to the com-
plainants, by two deeds of mortgage: the first dated the 29th
of September, 1848, professes to secure the sum of $22,499 33,
which the mortgagor owed the complainants, and for which,
with the interest thereon, be pa3sed the several promissory
notes recited in said mortgage. The second, dated the 9th of
October, 1848, professes to secure the sum of $6,000, also
owing by the mortgagor to the complainants, and for which he

  		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 510   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