| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 160 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
160 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. to devise said land to complainant and said William, and that he so told said Beale, and was prevented from making said devise by the persuasion and inducement of said Beale, who faithfully promised said Plummer that he would hold said property in trust for complainant and said William, and that but for such promise and undertaking of said Beale, the said devise would have been made by said Plummer to complainant and said William, and was in fact made to said Beale in trust for them. The bill contains various other averments relative to the possession of the property and the declarations of said Beale Gaither that he held it in trust for complainant and his brother William, &c., which it is not necessary to state. The prayer of the bill is that the deed of 1840 may be annulled and vacated, and the defendants required to convey said pro- perty to the complainant in fee. Besides the complainant, the said Beale Gaither left surviv- ing him his son, the said William, three daughters above- mentioned, and two sons, Thomas and James, his heirs-at-law, all of whom were made defendants to the bill, and severally answered, denying the averments thereof fully and particu- larly. The evidence taken in the case sufficiently appears from the opinion of the Chancellor.] THE CHANCELLOR: The proposition of law upon which the complainant's case rests, and upon which he has placed it by his bill, appears to be well fortified by authority. That proposition is, that if an heir or personal representative or devisee whose interests 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 that his wishes shall be executed, as though the provision were made, such assurance will raise a trust which, though not available at law, will be enforced in equity on the ground of fraud. Barrow vs. Greenough, 3 Ves., 152; Mestaer vs. Gillespie, 11 Fes., 621; Strickland vs. Aldridge, 9 Ves; 516; 1 Story's Eq., sec. 256; 2 ib., sec. 781. Cases establishing the principle could be multiplied to |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 160 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