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

CARLISLE VS: STEVENSON. 499

retained for a reasonable time, that the right be established at
law.
In this case, the title of the plaintiffs to any portion,of the
land of which a partition is prayed, is most emphatically
denied by the defendant, William Wells, of George, and there
is certainly nothing in the record clearly establishing it, in
opposition to the answer. The case, therefore, comes directly
within the precedent already set, and must be disposed of
accordingly. And there is this additional and strong reason
for leaving the complainants here to make out their title at
law, that the defendant. Wells, relies upon lapse of time, and
limitations founded upon long possession. This consideration,
as observed by Chancellor Kent, renders it still more proper
that the complainants should be required to establish their
title at law, before they come into Chancery for a partition.
[The Chancellor then passed an order similar to that in
the previous case.]
DAVID CARLISLE
vs. DECEMBER TERM, 1860.
HENRY STEVENSON.
[INJUNCTION TO PREVENT TRESPASS OR NUISANCE—JURISDICTION. ]
THIS Court has jurisdiction to compel a defendant, by means of an injunction
specially worded, to do a substantive act, whether auch injunction be
merely ancillary to the relief prayed by the bill or the ultimate object of
the suit.
Unless the trespass goes to the destruction of the inheritance, or the mischief
is irreparable, or an injunction is necessary to suppress multiplicity of
suits and oppressive litigation, equity has no authority to interfere by in-
junction.
The mere allegation that irremediable injury will result to the complainant,
unless protection is extended to him, is not sufficient; the facto must 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 499   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