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

HITCH VS. DAVIS. 265
that their interest is antagonistic to those who make the appli-
cation to the Court. Under these circumstances, I do not see
how the prayer of the bill can be granted.
The reference to the Acts of 1816, ch. 154, and 1818, ch.
193, and the incorporation of their provisions into the Act of
1831, under which the bill is filed, in my judgment, deny to
the Court the power to demise. permanently property situated
as this is, when from the evidence it appears that though the
interest of some of those in whom the title resides, will be pro-
moted, the rights of others in the same property will be
injured. It would, in my opinion, have been a stretch of
authority in the legislature, to authorize the disposition of the
property, in which several were concerned, upon the ground
that some would be benefited, whilst others would be damni-
fied; and I am aware of no law by which they have ever
attempted to do so. By the 12th section of the Act of 1785,
ch. 72, which authorizes the Court to direct the sale of lands
in which, from infancy, or other incapacity, some of the joint
owners are unable to agree, it is carefully provided that the
power shall only be exercised upon its appearing that it will
be for the interest and advantage of all parties, and I am not
aware of any law in which a provision so manifestly just has
been omitted.
It is to be regretted, certainly, that this conflict of interest
should exist, but when it does exist, why should the law inter-
pose to benefit one owner at the expense of another ? I shall,
therefore, dismiss the bill in this case, but as it is one of the
first impression, and is not without equitable circumstances, it
will be without costs.
LATROBE, for Complainant.
PRATT, for Respondents.

  		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 265   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