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

YOUNG VS. MACKALL. 407
B. G. Mackall, there is impressed the character of a trust, and
that for that reason they are not liable to be defeated by the
plea of the statute of limitations. I am firmly convinced, how-
ever, that this position cannot be maintained. The whole doc-
trine upon this subject of trusts was moat elaborately discussed
by Chancellor Kent, in the case of Kane vs. Bloodgood, 7
Johns. Oh. Rep., 90, who, after a critical and searching exami-
nation of the authorities, came to the conclusion, that " the
trusts intended by the Courts of Equity not to be reached or
affected by the statute of limitations, are those technical and
continuing trusts which are not at all cognizable at law, but
fall within the proper, peculiar, and exclusive jurisdiction of
Courts of Equity." The rule deduced by the Chancellor from
a review of the authorities in that case is, " that the trusts
which are not within the statute are those which are the crea-
tions of the Court of Equity, and not within the cognizance of
a Court of Law; and that as to those other trusts which fur-
nish causes of action at law as well as in equity, the statute is,
and in reason ought to be, as much a bar in one Court as the
other; that is, when the jurisdiction is concurrent, and the
party is at liberty to proceed in either Court, as in cases of
account, where a bill for an account may be brought in equity,
or an action of account at common law, the statute is equally
a bar in both Courts. In all such cases, the Courts of Equity,
though not within the words of the statute, adopting by analogy
the time prescribed by the Legislature as a fit and just period
as a bar in equity." And in the case of Kane vs. Bloodgood, a
bill for dividends in an incorporated company waa adjudged ,to
be barred by the statute, not having been brought within six
years after the right of action accrued, that being the period
of limitations at law. Equity in that case, acting by analogy,
and in obedience to the statute, and, as the Chancellor declared,
upon established principles which could set be disregarded.
The principle settled by the case of Kane vs. Bloodgood, so
far from being shaken, is affirmed by the Court of Appeals of
this State in Green and Wife vs. Johnson and Wife, 3 Gill
& Johns., 889. The clear doctrine of this last case is, that so

  		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 407   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