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

466 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
And the same view of the subject is plainly announced by the
Court of Appeals, in the case of Hoyden vs. Burch et al., 9
Gill, 79. I am, therefore, of opinion, that the insolvency of
.the personal estate constitutes in this Court no objection to
bringing the advancement in question into hotchpot, with the
real estate or the proceeds of the latter now to be distributed.
[The next opinion was delivered upon the petition of George
F. Maddox, as trustee of Heloise Smith, filed on the 25th of
February, 1851. This petition alleges that George H. Smith,
having antecedently used a large amount of his wife's property,
on the 27th of January, 1849, conveyed to Neale and Luckett,
of Baltimore, certain personal property, by way of mortgage,
to secure a debt of $3,336, due by Mm to them, upon conside-
ration that after payment of their debt, they should hold-and
.retain, or convey to such person or persons as the said Heloiae
might, by writing, appoint, to and for her sole, separate, and
exclusive use, as will appear by reference to said mortgage,
filed as Exhibit A. That in consideration of making this
mortgage and conditions therein contained, the said Heloise
and her husband, on the same day, mortgaged to Neale and
Luckett the interest of said Heloiae in the estate of Notley
Young, her deceased father, as a conditional security for their
said debt, as appears from Exhibit B, said mortgage. That
Neale and Luckett have filed Exhibit B in this cause, and the
Auditor has allowed them the amount of said debt out of said
Heloise's share of the estate of said Young, as appears by the
Auditor's account. That notwithstanding said allowance, by
which Neale and Luckett will receive full satisfaction of their
debt from said interest of said Heloise, they afterwards sold
the property mortgaged to them in Exhibit A, the holding or
conveying of which to the appointee of said Heloise, was the
only consideration upon which she executed Exhibit B. That
by deed, duly executed, the said Heloise appointed George C.
Morgan and the petitioner her trustees, to hold and receive
all the property, real and personal, she might have or be
entitled to; and that said Morgan has refused to act as one of

  		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 466   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