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

McKIM AND KENNEDY VS. MASON. 209
however the case may be as between the petitioners and the
Bank, the mortgagee, the question is a very different one be-
tween the petitioners and the Masons, for whom the machi-
nery was made.
Assuming in this view that the machinery was a fixture,
constituting a part of the freehold and covered by the mort-
gage to the Bank, it seems to me very clear that a purchaser
from the Bank, whoever he may be, will stand clothed with
the rights of the vendor, and that those rights, whatever they
are, will not be affected by the nature of the dealings between
this purchaser and a third party claiming in hostility to the
Bank. The claim of the petitioners under the mechanics' lien
law has been adjudged to be subordinate to the prior mortgage
to the Bank, and when the Bank purchased at the trustee's
sale it took the property wholly discharged from the lien of
the petitioners, and a purchaser from it must take a title
equally exempt from this lien.
If this be not so, the Bank may be deprived of the full benefit
of its.security. Having an unexceptionable title itself, it has
a right to go into the market with that title and make the
most of it, which it could not do if the person most likely to
purchase must take the property subject to an incumbrance,
which was of no avail against his vendor, 1 Story's Eq., secs.
409,410.
But in this case the title still remains in the Bank, and it is
the only security which it holds for the .unpaid portion of the
purchase-money, and as against the Bank, unquestionably, if
the former opinion of this Court is correct, the petitioners have
no claim. Their petition must therefore be dismissed.
In discussing the question presented by the petition, the
counsel for the petitioners not having heard the concluding
argument made by the Bank's counsel at the former hearing,
took occasion (and with entire propriety), to submit some
remarks upon the subject of the lien claimed by his clients,
under the mechanics' lien law.
There can be no doubt, that under the original Act of 1838,
ch. 205, and its several supplements, the. lien of the mechanic

  		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 209   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