| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 192 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
192 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. parties, are numbered 6 and 7. Adam and William Den- mead, whose claims are numbered 8 and 9, supplied portions of the machinery. This consisted, with the exception of so'me looms, of the motive power. According to the proof, there was a steam-engine, with three boilers, tanks, and appurte- nances, which were put up and placed upon the premises in the mode pointed out by the witnesses, Barling & Hedrick. The Messrs. Denmead claim to have a lien on this machinery under the mechanics' lien law, and upon the footing of judg- ments recovered upon a proceeding in Baltimore. County Court, in September, 1849, under the lien law passed at December Sessions, 1888, ch. 205. It is insisted on their part, that these judgments are in the nature of proceedings in rem, and binding and conclusive on all the world. So far as the rights of these creditors depends upon the cases relating to the lien of mechanics and others upon build- ings, the decision of this Court in the case of Jones vs. ffancocJc, 1 Maryland Oh. Decisions, 187, is conclusive against them, as respects prior incumbrances. The property upon which the machinery in question was constructed, was subject to a lien or incumbrance prior to the commencement of the building in which the machinery was placed, and consequently so long as the case of Jones vs. Hancock remains unreversed, the lien given to the mechanic must be deferred to the prior incum- brancer. I have not deemed it necessary to look into the authorities, to see how far the proceedings authorized by the act of 1838 can give to the judgment which may be rendered for the claim, the quality of a judgment in rem, because the records of these judgments show that these creditors not only have not adopted the proceedings by which the rights of third parties could be affected, but they, by agreement with the defendant's counsel, have expressly waived it. The claim of the Messrs. Denmead was filed against William Mason, William Mason, Jr., and Henry A. Barling, and the seire facias authorized by the 14th section of the statute, was issued against them only. But the legislature contemplated |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 192 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