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 3, Page 137   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

GOUGH VS. CRANE. 137
giving a retorno habendo bond would have them restored to
him, and his claim to the specific thing converted probably into
a personal demand upon the bond in the event of his succeed-
ing in the action.
In White's Equity Cases, 65, Law Lib., 545, many cases
are collected establishing the principle that a Court of Equity
will decree a specific delivery up of deeds or writings to the
persons legally entitled to them; and in Jackson vs. Butler,
2 Atk., 306, where mortgage deeds delivered to a person for
the purpose of receiving the principal and interest due on them
had been pawned by him, were decreed to be delivered up by
the pawnee, Lord Hardwicke observing, that the plaintiff might
have had an action of trover, but then he could only have had
damages for the detaining, but not the deeds themselves, and
therefore he was right in bringing a bill in equity for the re-
covery of his deeds.
Under all the circumstances of the case, therefore, I shall
decree the specific delivery of these notes. It appears to me
at least doubtful whether the plaintiff has that plain, adequate,
and complete remedy at law which will preclude the interposition
in his favor of this Court; and seeing that the objection was
not made until after the argument of the cause had commenced,
which, though not of itself a sufficient, reason for refusing
altogether to listen to it, is a reason why the Court should
lean against it, and I am not disposed now to yield to it. But
though the decree will be for the plaintiff, the costs will not
be thrown upon the defendants, who in resisting the claim
made upon them, acted in the proper discharge of their duty.
J. M. S. CAUSIN, for Plaintiff.
GEO. BRENT, for Defendants.
[An appeal was taken in this case, which is still pending.]

  		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 3, Page 137   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  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives