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

^264 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
and therefore this complainant, though her estate does not
vest in possession until the death of her mother, Mrs. Sarah
Hitch, has a standing to file the bill.
But I apprehend that, looking to the entire law, the Court
is not at liberty to order a demise, unless it is made to appear
affirmatively that the interest and advantage of all parties con-
cerned, would be promoted by it, and such appears to have
been the view of the solicitor, by whom the bill in this case
was framed; the allegation being " that the said fifty acres,"
(the land proposed to be leased), " are at this time not as pro-
ductive as they might be made, if they could be demised after
the usual manner in the City of Baltimore, for terms looking
to the creation of permanent ground-rents, which would be for
the interest of all parties."
But the defendants, Jacob G. Da vis and wife, and Solomon
B. Davis, to whom the ultimate remainder is limited, whilst
admitting that the property might be made more productive
than it is now by proper cultivation, or by being leased on per-
manent leases, insist that should they ever become entitled to
said property, these permanent leases at the present low prices
of land, would be seriously injurious to them; and hence they
deny the power of the Court to grant the prayer of the bill.
The proof in the cause sustains the theory of the answers,
and shows most conclusively, that whilst the parties now in the
possession and enjoyment of the property would be benefited
by leasing it permanently, those to whom, under the will of
Solomon Bates, it may ultimately pass, would, should that
event happen, be materially injured, should it now be placed
on permanent leases.
It is very true that, under the provisions of the will, neither
Mrs. Davis nor her son, Solomon B. Davis, may ever have any
interest in the property. This depends upon the death of
Augusta Hitch, the complainant, without leaving issue living at
that time. But should she so die, the limitations over to Mrs.
Davis, and. Solomon B. Davis, will take effect, and conse-
quently, they are interested in the disposition which may be
now made of the property; and the evidence clearly shows

 
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 264   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