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

McKIM VS. THE WHITE HALL CO. 515
complainants for the notes attempted to be secured by the sec-
ond mortgage, but that they were given in fulfilment of the
stipulation for the forfeiture of the sum of $6,000, mentioned
as the forfeit in the agreement of September, 1846. It has
been urged by the counsel for the defendant, that as the
Messrs. McKim were engaged in business, which unfitted them
for acting as agents for the sale of the articles made at this fac-
tory, the stipulation under which the notes were given, was a
fl»ere cloak to cover the usury, and it cannot be denied that
there is much weight in the suggestion, but as the first mort-
gage, which, in that view of the case, would come within the
scope of the objection, is not assailed, and as in any event, the
amount really due must be paid; and as, in my opinion, the
defence of usury is not properly interposed, even as respects
the second mortgage, I do not deem it necessary to consider
this question, but shall very briefly inquire into the right of the
complainants to a decree upon their last mortgage in opposi-
tion to the objection, that it is wholly destitute of considera-
tion, legal or equitable, and was given to secure a forfeit.
It is admitted by the complainant's counsel, in his argument,
that this mortgage was given in pursuance of the agreement of
September, 1846, and its validity is maintained upon the
ground that, as Mason had deprived them of the benefit of the
agency, they were justly entitled to the amount, in the event,
stipulated to be paid them. "That an obligation so founded,
upon good consideration, and afterwards acknowledged by
Mason, can no more be disturbed by his assignee, than it could
by himself." It will be recollected, however, that the mort-
gagees are the complainants, asking to have this instrument en-
forced, and if the court is satisfied that it does not rest upon a
good foundation, but that, on the contrary, it is without such a
consideration as should commend it to the favor of a court of
equity, it is its duty to refuse its aid to enforce it. The sum
of $6,000, and the other sums mentioned in the mortgage of
October, 1848, is the forfeit which Mason agreed to pay in the
event that he failed, or neglected to appoint the complainants
his agents, as provided for in the agreement, and thus regarded,

  		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 515   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