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

158 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
under the circumstances, he might reasonably have regarded
it as his duty to bring the suit, I will not subject him to costs.
COLEMAN YELLOTT, for Complainant.
ST. GEORGE W. TEACKLE, for Defendants.
[An appeal was taken from the decree of the Chancellor,
dismissing the bill in accordance with the above opinion, which
is still pending.]
BEALE GAITHER
VS.
SUSAN GAITHER AND
ELLEN GAITHER ET AL.
DECEMBER TERM, 1861.
[TRUST—FRAUD—EVIDENCE.]
IT an heir or personal representative or devisee, whose interest would be
prejudiced by the insertion of a provision in a will in favor of some third
person, induces the testator to omit such provision by assurances, either
by words or silent assent, that his wishes shall be executed as though the
provision were made, such assurance will raise a trust which will be
enforced in equity on the ground of fraud.
If such trust be denied by the heir or devisee, it may be proved by parol,
though the atatute of frauds be relied upon as & defence.
But the Court will not interfere if there be any doubt or ambiguity in the
evidence, and there is no case in which the party setting up such a, pro-
vision has been successful, where a reasonable doubt in regard to the
fact could be entertained.
In this case the will was executed in 1834, the testator died in 1836, and
the person by whom the imputed assurance was alleged to be made died
in 1849, and the bill was not filed until 1860. No reason for the delay
was assigned, and the plaintiff entirely failed in producing clear and
satisfactory evidence of the assurances set up in the bill. The Chancellor
dismissed the bill.
Declarations of a grantor made since the execution of a deed, are inadmis-
sible to impair the rights of parties claiming under it.
Declarations of a deceased attesting witness to a Trill, respecting the incapa-

 
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 158   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