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

516 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
the authorities are express, that they have no claim to the aid
of the court, the rule being a universal 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. Story's
Equity PI.) section 521; 2 Story's Com. on Eq., section 1319;
Livingston vs. Tompkins, 4 Johns. Ch. Rep; 415. In this
case, Mr. Chancellor Kent said, "It may be laid down as a
fundamental doctrine of this court, that equity does not assist
the recovery of a penalty or forfeiture, or any thing in the na-
ture of a forfeiture."
I cannot bring myself to think, that the power of this court
can be successfully invoked in this case, because of the exe-
cution of the mortgage. That circumstance does not take
from the claim the character of a forfeiture, against the en-
forcement of which, the court always turns its face.
I will, therefore, sign a decree, in the usual form, for a sale of
the mortgaged premises, to pay the claims founded upon the
first mortgage, but in my opinion, the residue of the proceeds
of sale, will not be applicable to the payment of the second.
J. MASON CAMPBELL for Complainants.
ST. G. W. TEACKLE for Defendants,
EPHRAIM K. BARNUM,
ANB
ZENOS BARNUM,
EXECUTORS OF
DAVID BARNUM, DECEMBER TERM, 1850.
vs.
CATHERINE M. RABORG
AND
CATHERINE M. McCLELLAN. .
[OBJECTIONS TO APPEAL BOND——CHANCERY PRACTICE——INDEMNITY FOR DETEN-
TION OF POSSESSION OF LAND.]
IT has never been the practice of this court to require the sureties in an appeal
bond, when excepted to, to justify, in order to ascertain their sufficiency, in
analogy to the practice at law in the case of bail.
The only question, in cases where an appeal bond is objected to, is, to ascertain

  		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 516   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