| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 468 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
468 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. these causes, anything was omitted which should have been inserted. This principle is established by an unbroken current of authority; and it is equally well settled, that when a deed is impeached from fraud, by disproving the consideration expressed in it, a different consideration changing its character cannot be set up. Belts vs. Union Bank,1 H. & Q., 186; Clagett and Hill vs. Hall, 9 G. & J., 81; Harm and Chauncy vs. Alcock, 10 G. & J., 248; Cole vs. Albers and Runge, 1 Gill, 412. In this case, the deeds in question have not been impeached) by disproving the consideration expressed in them, and there- fore, according to the doctrine of the ease last referred to, it would be competent to offer evidence of the same kind of con- sideration, differing only in amount, to rebut any imputation of fraud which might be attempted to be east upon them. But except under such circumstances, and for such purpose, it is in opposition to one of the best-established principles of the law of evidence, to permit the introduction of parol proof, to add to, vary, or change the terms of the written contract. 9 G.& J.,91. I therefore consider the parol. proof offered in this ease, in so far as it may affect the construction or legal effect and ope- ration of the deeds, by showing that other considerations than those displayed upon their face, influenced the parties in exe- cuting them, as inadmissible, and shall proceed very briefly to examine into their merits, as they depend upon the deeds themselves. The deed which is referred to as Exhibit A, is a mortgage executed by George H. Smith to Neale and Luckett, of sundry negroes, and other articles of personal property, to secure the payment of $3,336, due from Smith to the grantees, partly upon judgment, and partly upon drafts, the deed reciting that Neale and Luckett, in consideration of farther security, had agreed to suspend executing their Judgment, and further reciting that Smith, having paid to them and other persona large amounts of money of the separate estate of his wife, and that it was always intended, as it was just, he should repay |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 468 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