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

McCLELLAN VS. KENNEDY. 255
John Hillen, of the 18th of October, 1827, again recognised
the existence of this debt, and the liability of the property for
its payment.
It must be borne in mind, however, that these conveyances,
both of them, were executed long before the present Mrs.
McCleIlan executed her release of March, 1834, and it would
be manifestly unjust to hold Mrs. Bedford bound by the stipu-
lations of those deeds, and relieve Mrs. McClellan from the
operation of her release to her former guardian. In my opi-
nion, there not only is no good reason why Mrs. Bedford
should be held liable upon the stipulations of these deeds, and
Mrs. McCleIlan discharged from the effect of her release, but
if any discrimination must be made, it should be in favor of
the former, and not the latter. Mrs. Bedford had been
stripped of all her property under circumstances of foul wrong
and imposition, and it is not difficult to suppose she would
submit to almost any terms to recover some portion of it.
Messrs. Kennedy and Glenn, having a due and proper regard
for their own safety, could not have reconveyed the property
to her upon any materially different terms. And Mr. Hillen,
having become her surety, was compelled to take a deed which
would protect him from danger. Situated thus, we may well
understand the considerations which induced Mrs. Bedford to
take the deed from Kennedy, Glenn, and Mitchell, and to give
the deed to Hillen.
But Mrs. McCleIlan, in executing the release to her father,
on the 12th of March, 1834, was subject to no such influences.
She was of competent age. His guardianship had terminated
nearly nine years previously, and there was nothing in their
relative position at that time which can excite the slightest
suspicion that, in releasing him, she was not acting with entire
J and absolute freedom of will, and with full knowledge of what
she was doing.
I hold it, therefore, to be clear, that so long as that release
stands, Mrs. McCleIlan and her husband, the present com-
plainants, cannot be permitted to recover against Mrs. Bedford
and those who claim under her, because, by any previous act
or covenant on her part, she may have consented that the

  		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 255   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