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

458 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
another part by placing upon it a fence of wood, &c., "and
that the value and use of their lot, as a building lot, was per-
manently injured by the deprivation of three front feet as
aforesaid, there no longer being space there to erect two dwell-
ings of twelve and a half feet front, such as are erected and
rent readily in that neighborhood."
Now, it appears to me very clear, that upon this statement
of facts the plaintiffs were entitled to the interference of this'
Court by injunction, to prevent the threatened mischief. The
acts complained of went to the destruction of the plaintiffs'
estate. Taking possession of a portion of their lot, and digging
upon it a foundation for a building, and erecting a building
upon that foundation, thereby reducing the front of their lot BO
as to prevent their building upon it themselves, in the mode
which would be most advantageous, surely goes to the destruc-
tion, pro tanto, of the estate, and "injures the just enjoyment
of the property in future." It is not a mere trespass for which
pecuniary compensation may be obtained in the ordinary course
of law; but the plaintiffs' estate would be destroyed to a cer-
tain extent, by rendering it unfit for the erection of two houses,
in which way, they swear, it would be the most profitable to
improve it. And it is no answer to say,'that if the plaintiffs
recover the land in dispute in an action of ejectment they
would get the wall which the defendant put upon it, because
that wall, if suffered to remain, would still prevent their erect-
ing two houses upon their lot. The wall would have to be
removed, and the foundation filled up, before they could have
the just use and enjoyment of their property.
But though the bill, in my opinion, does state facts which
entitle the complainants to the aid of this Court by injunction,
the case wears a very different aspect when considered in con-
nection with the answer. The answer first denies the disseizin
as charged, and it likewise expressly denies " that the defen-
dant has commenced digging a foundation, or building a dwell-
ing or other house on any part of any lot belonging to the
complainants or either of them," &c. And then, after stating
that the defendant, and those under whom he claims, have been

  		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 458   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