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

260 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY..
were taken to said accounts by Richard Gambril, the tenant
for life, the nature of which sufficiently appears from the fol-
lowing opinion of the Chancellor, pronounced on the hearing
of said exceptions.]
THE CHANCELLOR:
This case is submitted upon the exceptions of Richard Gam-
bril to the Auditor's account C, accompanying his report of
the 27th of January last.
The case, in its circumstances, is not precisely like that of
Bright vs. Boyd, 1 Story's Rep., 478, cited with approbation
by the Court of Appeals in Jones' Admr. of Hawkins vs. Jones,
4 Gill, 87. But though the facts are dissimilar, the views ex-
pressed by the Court in both cases apply with much force to
the question raised by the first exception in this case.
The principle settled by the Court of Appeals in Jones vs.
Jones appears to be this: that though a mortgagee in posses-
sion, or a tenant for life, may not in all cases be allowed for
new improvements, yet a party, thinking himself absolutely
entitled, who has expended considerable sums in repairs, and
lasting improvements, will be allowed for such expenditures.
The Court did not mean to decide against the right of the
mortgagee, or tenant for life, to be allowed for reasonable and
permanent improvement, as well as repairs; but that, con-
ceding such to be the rule still, a party entertaining the bond
fide impression that he was the true and absolute owner, and
expending money under that impression in improvements, as
well as repairs, would, when called upon to account, be per-
mitted to recover the amount so expended, from the rents and
profits.
Thia, however, is not a case in which a mortgagee in posses-
sion, or tenant for life, is called on to account; nor is it a case
in which a party supposing himself to be entitled to the estate
has made improvements and repairs, and now when he finds he
was mistaken as to the title, and the property and its profits
are demanded of him, asks to be allowed for the sums so ex-
pended. It is a case in which the rights of the parties to 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 260   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  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives