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

460 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
and erecting a house is concerned (if the answer is to be cre-
dited), no encroachment upon the plaintiff's possession, and no
injury which has not existed and been acquiesced in for a
period which, under ordinary circumstances, would ripen, into
perfection a title originally defective.
The plaintiffs' counsel, it is true, makes an agreement to
show that the deeds which the defendant relies upon do not
clothe him with the title, but that is a question properly deter-
minable by another tribunal. This Court cannot interpose its
extraordinary power, unless it be to prevent an admitted or
proved injury, which cannot be redressed in the ordinary course
of law. If it be true that the defendant, and those under
whom he claims, have held this piece of property for the
period stated in the answer, and he is only about to pull down
and re-erect, upon the old foundation, a house which has stood
there so many years, surely a Court of Chancery should with-
hold its hand, and leave the-parties to litigate the matter at
law. The question in that event is a purely legal one, with
which this Court has nothing to do.
Upon an examination of the proof, there would seem to be
no doubt that the statement of the answer with regard to the
possession, and with reference to the fact that the new walla
are about to be erected upon the old foundation, are substan-
tially if not literally true, and therefore the ground upon .which
the title of the plaintiffs to the interposition of the Court
rested, is removed.
The fact that the trespass with regard to the fence is ad-
mitted certainly per se, furnishes no sufficient claim to the aid
of a Court of Equity by injunction. This is unquestionably no
destruction of the inheritance, or irreparable injury for which
the Courts of law are incompetent to compensate in damages,
On the contrary, it is a mere ordinary trespass, for which a
jury is the peculiar and appropriate tribunal to give redress.
Several questions have been presented and, ingeniously dis-
cussed by the counsel in their written arguments, into an exa-
mination of which I do not propose to enter, having, in what

  		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 460   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  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives