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

McCLELLAN VS. KENNEDY. 241
she joined in this bill, and whether she seeks to invalidate the
release executed by her as aforesaid, and whether it is her
purpose, notwithstanding this release, to take the property of
her half-sister Henrietta to pay the debt which her father once
owed her and which she released, as above stated.
They then aver that the debt, if any, was due and payable
on the 9th of March, 1834, and long before that date; and that
the same not having been demanded within three years after
the same became due, is wholly barred by the statute of limita-
tions, which they accordingly plead; and in conclusion, sum up
their answer as follows:
" First. That the property mentioned and described in the
deed of trust, from Mitchell to the defendants Kennedy and
Glenn, was originally derived by the said Mitchell from the de-
fendant, Henrietta Bedford, upon a false and fraudulent pre-
text of marriage, and that consequently both the original deed
to Mitchell, and Mitchell's deed to the defendants, Kennedy
and Glenn, were void. This consideration was the ground upon
which the case in Chancery to set aside the deed was settled,
the suit withdrawn, and the property reconveyed by Kennedy,
Glenn and Mitchell, to the said Henrietta.
"Second. That there was nothing in the deed of trust to pre-
vent the parties thereto from conveying the property to the
said Henrietta, she agreeing on her part to meet any engage-
ment which the trust might have created, if it were valid.
" Third. That there is no just claim on the part of the com-
plainants, the same having been released. That said release
is intentionally kept out of view by the complainants, and that
the complainant, Maria, does not voluntarily concur in this suit
to invalidate said release.
" Fourth. That the claim of the complainants, if they ever
had any, is barred by limitations and cannot be recovered."
The documentary proof in the case, consists of the various
deeds referred to in the bill and answers. 1st. The deed of
the 23d of March, 1825, "between Henrietta A. Mitchell,
otherwise called Henrietta A. Bedford" and Richard Bennet
Mitchell, by which the former conveys to the latter, in fee

 
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 241   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