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

498 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
and depends upon some questions of a strictly legal character,
which render it eminently proper that it should be submitted
to examination in a Court of Law. One of these questions is,
whether the defendants are not protected by lapse of time, and
the statute of limitations relied upon, in the answer of some
of them rendering it still more essential that the plaintiffs
should make out their title at law.
In the case of Wells eh ux vs. Beall, 2 G. & J., 468, this
course was pursued by the Court of Appeals, upon a bill for
dower, when the husband's title to the land was controverted,
the bill being retained, and a reasonable time given, to enable
the complainant to establish her title at law.
[The Chancellor then passed an order, allowing complainants
the period of twelve months, to establish their title at law, and
in the mean time retaining the bill, with leave to any of the par-
ties at any time after the expiration of said twelve months, to
move for such further order and decree as the case may require.
In the case of Saffels and Wells vs. Wells and others,
decided at the same term, involving the same question, the
Chancellor delivered the following opinion.]

THE CHANCELLOR :
I had occasion, a few days ago, in the case of Boone vs.
Boone, et al., to consider the question presented by the plead-
ings in this case, and came then to the conclusion, that this
Court would not sustain a bill for a partition, where the title of
the complainant was denied, or not clearly established by the
evidence. Following, however, the authority of the Chancellor
in Wilkin vs. Wilkin, 1 Johns. Oh. Sep., Ill, I deemed it
proper to retain the bill for a reasonable time, to give the
complainant an opportunity to make out his title at law, if he
could do so. And in this respect, also, pursuing the course
adopted by the Court of Appeals in Wells and wife vs. Beall,
2 G. & J., 468, where, in a bill for dower, the title of the
husband being controverted, the cause was directed to be

  		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 498   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  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives