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

374 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
go to the relatives on the part of the mother (who are the
exceptants), to the exclusion of the father, according to the
provisions of the first section of the Act of 1820, eh. 191. It
can only be, by considering the deed valid, and that the child
takes as a purchaser under it, that the father can claim, the
child upon that hypothesis constituting a new root or stock of
inheritance, and the father, under the circumstances of the
case, by the terms of the same Act, taking as heir to his child.
These exceptants are privies in blood to the mother and the
child, and standing in that relation, they seem to have the
clear right to set aside the deed in question, the rule being,
that the infant himself, or his representatives, privies in blood,
can avoid a voidable conveyance made by the infant. Whit-
tingham's Case, 8 Rep., 42. If the infant does not live to
confirm or adopt at full age the feoffment which he made daring
his minority, it may be set aside by persons who are privy to
him in blood, but not by a person who is privy in estate only.
McPherson on Infants, 465.
My opinion, therefore, is that, viewing this settlement as one
of those voidable acts which must be disaffirmed in order to
set it aside, that these exceptants, who are privy in blood, are
competent to do so, and that, having availed themselves of that
privilege, the deed is to be disregarded, and the estate then
descending to the heirs on the part of the mother, the father
can take no more than his curtesy interest, and that it appears
from the proceedings he has already received.
And I am further of opinion, that upon the true construc-
tion of the Act of Assembly, and upon the authority of the
case of Porter vs. Askew, 11 G. & J., 346, the residue of the
proceeds of these sales resulting from that portion of the real
estate sold which belonged to Mrs. Stephenson,,must be dis-
tributed among the uncles and aunts of her infant child, to
the exclusion of the children of uncles and aunts, if any there
be. The case will be sent to the Auditor, to state an account
accordingly.
LATROBE, for the Husband.
MCMAHON, for Exceptants.

  		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 374   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