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

FALCONER VS. GRIFFITH. 157
he will have a right to go against the firm fur the money he
paid for it. That is, that the charge to his account, made
with his consent in September, 1850, when he received the
conveyance, must be struck out, and consequently that Kramer
is interested in supporting the conveyance. It is not said that
there was any agreement to this effect, and I can see no ground
upon which the law would imply one. As between dark and
Griffith it is very clear, that in the absence of fraud or mis-
representation there could be no recovery against the former,
even on a failure of title, the rule being that a vendor selling
in good faith is not responsible for the goodness of his title
beyond the extent of the covenants in his deed. Abbott vs.
.Alien, 2 Johns. Ch. Rep., 523; Gouverneur vs. Elmendorf, 5
i6id., 79. In this deed there are no covenants, and there is
no pretence that any fraud or misrepresentation was practised
by dark upon Griffith. If there is any fraud in the case (of
which I see no evidence) it is upon the creditors of dark, in
which Griffith was a participant, and for that surely he can
have no remedy.
But if there could be no recovery against Clark on a failure
of title, upon what principle can Griffith be permitted to have
recourse to the firm of Kramer, Mantz & Company for his
money, if the deed to him is annulled ? They certainly have
not engaged to indemnify, if the title fails, and he can have no
ground for going against them, except that they have together
perpetrated a fraud upon the creditors of dark, he, Griffith,
being a most active party in its perpetration. This would be
a strange ground for applying to a court of law or equity for
relief. Kramer is no party to the cause; he is not liable for
costs. The decree could not be used in evidence against him,
and he could not be proceeded against by Griffith in the event
of the failure of the latter, to sustain .his deed, except upon
grounds which would effectually close the door of the Court in
his face. I regard him, therefore, as a competent witness, and
being competent, he makes out a case which shows a bona fide
purchase by Griffith, of the property in question.
I shall, therefore, dismiss the bill, but in consideration of
the character in which the plaintiff sues, and thinking that

  		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 157   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  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives