| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 414 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
414 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. tire payment of the claim of Basil D. Spalding, and upon the strength of which they seek to exclude him from all participa- tion in the fund. It is an acknowledged principle, in this State, whatever di- versity of opinion may exist elsewhere, that the receipt in a deed is only prima facie evidence of the payment of the pur- chase-money, and may be explained or contradicted by parol. Wolf vs. Hauver, 1 Gill, 84. In that case, the Court quote with approbation the following language in the case of Chilly vs. Grubbs, 1 J. J. Marshall, 388: " The acknowledgment in a deed of the receipt of the purchase-money, is only prima facie evidence, and is inserted more for the purpose of showing the actual consideration, than its payment; and it is, in general, inserted in deeds of conveyance, whether the consideration has been paid or agreed to be paid." " If the consideration had not been paid, such an acknowledgment in a deed would be in- tended to mean, that the specified amount had been assumed ty note or otherwise." These remarks, in the propriety of which the Court of Ap- peals express their concurrence in the case referred to, seem to me to be a complete answer to the objections to this claim, founded upon the acknowledgment and receipt for the pur- chase-money contained in the deed. Basil D. Spalding has in his possession the single bill of his brother, George R. Spalding, for $2,163 27, and, assuming that this obligation was given to secure the payment due the former from the lat- ter for bis proportion of the estate of their father, it is evi- dence sufficient to countervail the acknowledgment in the deed, Which, say the Court, "is in general inserted in deeds of con- veyance, whether the consideration has been paid or agreed to be paid." The single bill is an agreement in the most solemn form, to pay the money expressed in it, and must prevail against the mere prima facie evidence furnished by the deed. If, in truth, George B. had paid Basil the amount of this single bill, it is certainly difficult to believe he would not have required the re- delivery to him of his obligation, and his not having done so, |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 414 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