| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 333 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
REYNOLDS VS. HOWARD. 333 But, according to my understanding, the bill cannot be re- garded as one of that description, and, I am persuaded, was not originally so considered by the complainants' solicitor, or else he would have brought before the Court the parties neces- sary to enable it to dispense the relief proper to such a bill. The bond of conveyance which contains the evidence of the contract of sale, and which binds the obligees to convey the land upon the payment of the purchase-money, is signed by five parties, and yet but two of them are made parties to this bill. The Court, therefore, would not, even if the com- plainants had shown themselves entitled to such relief, be able, for the want of necessary parties, to grant it. A conveyance, of course, could not be decreed unless all the vendors were before the Court; and there can, I think, be little doubt they would have been brought here, if the complainants had framed their bill with a view to that relief. The only ground of complaint, presented by this bill, is the non-payment by the defendants, Margaretta Howard and Emily Howard, of their proportions of certain taxes, alleged to be liens upon the land; and the only relief sought by it is, that they shall be restrained by in- junction from proceeding at law to enforce payment of the two last notes, given to each of them for the purchase-money, until the taxes are paid. It is true, there is a prayer for general relief; but neither the case made by the bill, nor the parties before the Court, will enable it to decree a specific performance of the contract of purchase. And the question, therefore, is whether the amount in controversy is sufficiently large to sus- tain the jurisdiction of this Court. Upon examining the evi- dence, I am of opinion it is not. The Act of 1715, ch. 41, declares, that this Court " shall not hear, determine, or give relief in any cause, matter, or thing, wherein the original debt, or damages, doth not amount to 1201 pounds of tobacco, or five pounds and one penny in money." In this case, the only matter in controversy is less than five pounds, as plainly ap- pears from the extract from the assessment book of Baltimore County, which, by the agreement of the parties, is to be re- ceived as evidence of the matters therein contained. The |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 333 View pdf image (33K) |
|
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.
Maryland State Archives