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

362 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
defendant's bonds, and these parties are not now before the
Court.
In the former opinion of this Court, it was said that " this
is the case of a husband dying seized of a legal estate of inhe-
ritance," and therefore the widow's claim to dower could not
be defeated; 1 Md. Oh. Decisions, 454. It is now contended,
however, that inasmuch as the title of Mr. Bowie was only an
equitable one in 1839, when he contracted to sell to the defen-
dant, and as, according to the view which this Court has (1
Md. Ch. Decisions, 454) taken of the case of Miller vs. Stump,
3 Gill, 304, he might, by a transfer of his title in his lifetime,
without his wife's consent, have defeated her claim to dower,
his contract to sell must have the same effect, upon the prin-
ciple of equity, that that shall be considered as done which
the party has contracted to do; and consequently, when a con-
tract is made for the sale of an estate, equity considers the
vendor as a trustee for the purchaser of the estate sold, and
the purchaser as a trustee of the purchase-money for the ven-
dor; Sugden's Vendors, 130.
There is no doubt that such is the rule in equity as between
the parties to the contract, and yet it is perfectly well settled
that a bona fide purchaser from the vendor without notice,
would be protected from the claim of the vendee. Equity,
therefore, does not, for all purposes and to every intent, consi-
der that done which is only contracted to be done, because if
that were so, a subsequent purchaser obtaining a conveyance
without notice, could not hold against the title of the prior
vendee claiming under a contract.
The cases in Maryland only prove, that where the husband
holding the equitable title, actually parts with it, or it is sold
and disposed of by his creditor during his lifetime, the wife
shall not be endowed. There is no case which decides that a
mere executory contract made by him will have the same
effect.
Upon the purchase of this land by Mr. Bowie, in the year
1832, the right to dower attached, subject, to be sure, to be
defeated by a transfer of his title in his lifetime. It may be

 
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 362   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