| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 530 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
530 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. as of the 6th of July, 1850, instead of calculating the inter- est to the 8th of May, 1848, and then compounding on that sum up to the 27th of June, 1850. To the allowance of the item of $1,207 46, the defendants object. First, Because there is no case before the Chancellor in which the respective claims of the purchaser and the defend- ants as against each other can be adjusted, or an account be- tween them stated. Zenos Barnum was but the purchaser of the estate, the defendants the debtors upon the claim under which the property was sold, the controversy between them in the Court of Chancery affected only the validity of the sale reported by the trustee, and the damage resulting from the delay conse- quent upon the appeal from the order of ratification is covered by the appeal bond, to which the purchaser may resort for in- demnity. But the defendants respectfully insist that it is not competent for the Chancellor in any condition of this case, to determine how far the purchaser has been damnified by the course of the defendants, and to assess and liquidate his dam- ages. That can only be done by a resort to the bond of the defendants, and in a different form. Second. There is no evidence from which the Chancellor can determine the amount of damage the purchaser has sustained, if it be conceded that it is competent for this court to assess it, and enforce its payment in this suit. The assumption that the possession of the property was equivalent in value to the interest of the purchase money, is altogether arbitrary. It may have been worth more, or much less, and it is impos- sible, therefore, to say, that the measure of damages in this case is the precise interest. It cannot escape the observa- tion of the Chancellor, that if this audit be confirmed, the de- fendants are made to pay not only the interest due by them up to the day of the final settlement of this controversy, but inter- est for a large portion of the same period upon the whole pur- chase money of which that debt is a part. The defendants, therefore, maintain that these items are not allowable, and that the same, or a portion of them are not even cognizable in this court. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 530 View pdf image (33K) |
|
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.
Maryland State Archives