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

22 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
filed on the 4th of December, 1847, made a distribution of the
proceeds of the sale, by which, after appropriating $4488 85
to the payment of the complainant's own mortgage, and $1274
15 to the payment of an elder judgment, he applied $480 55
to Wilson's judgment, leaving a balance of $319 95, which
was assigned to the mortgagor. This audit was ratified and
confirmed on the 26th of July, 1849, being more than nineteen
months afterwards, the purchaser interposing no objection, nor
did he, in fact, make any objection until the 81st of January,
1851, more than three years from the filing of the Auditor's
report.
The ground now taken is, that this petitioner though be was
the complainant in the original bill, and though by toe report
of the Auditor, and the order of the court thereupon of the 26th
of July, 1849, he received a large proportion of the proceeds of
the sale of the mortgaged premises, he being himself the pur-
chaser thereof, Jet that inasmuch as he cannot, in his capacity
of purchaser, be regarded as a party to the proceedings, the
orders and decrees of the court therein, are not binding upon
him. It was said by the late Chancellor in Binney vs. Cose,
2 Bland, 108, that "where the legal capacities of the parties
are different, such capacities must be considered as if they were
several persons." This may be so, and I have no doubt is so
in many cases,-in which questions arise as to whether proper
parties are before the court. But the .question here is not
whether this petitioner was a party to the proceedings as a pur-
chaser, but whether being a party, as the complainant, and
having had a large proportion of the purchase money applied
to the payment of his own claims, he is not affected with no-
tice of the appropriation of a portion of the proceeds to the
payment of Wilson's judgment. And if he had such notice, I
do not see how he can escape the consequences of his remiss-
ness in suffering upwards of three years to elapse before he
brings forward his objection. He insists that no harm would
be done to the holder of Wilson's judgment by this, because he
had no legal or equitable claim to any portion of the proceeds
of .the Bales, and that if his application is granted, it will be

  		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 22   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  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives