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

DUCKER VS. BELT.
only giving the money to those who are entitled to it. Bat
how can we know that no harm will result to Wilson from this
negligence. Belt, the mortgagor, is now dead; and it may very
well be, if this petitioner had asserted his righto earlier, that
the judgment creditor might have recovered his claim in some
other way. Besides, this judgment ia now held by Evans, the
assignee of Wilson, and how is it possible to say to what ex-
tent his rights and remedies over against thoee who may be
ulteriorly responsible to him, may be jeoparded by this delay.
It is said, and cases have been cited in support of the position,
that to a bill for a foreclosure and sale, all incumbrancers, or
persons having liens, existing at the commencement; of the suit,
subsequent as well as prior in date to the plaintiffs mortgage,
must be made parties, otherwise they will not be bound by the
decree. Such was take judgment of Chancellor Kent, in the
case of Haines vs. Beach, 3 Johns. Oh. Rep., 459, and I pre-
sume it can scarcely be questioned, that the rights of such per-
sons, not made parties, cannot be impaired by the decree. But
that is not the question involved in this case upon this petition.
The mortgagee here thought fit to file his bill without muling
the junior incumbrancers parties, though aa to the- mortgage to
King, he had constructive notice by the enrollment, and than
having obtained a decree, and himself become the: purchaser of
the property, he claims to have the surplus applied in satisfac-
tion of King's mortgage, which King himself, by his negligence,
had forfeited his title to have done; For these reasons, in ad-
dition to those stated in the opinion of February, 1640, I am of
opinion the relief asked for by: this petition cannot be granted
GRAFTON L. DULANEY, for Petitioners.
J. If. CAMPBELL, for Evans and Wilson.

  		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 23   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