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

ING VS. .BROWN AND BRANNAN. 525
principle which will authorize me in taking from the defen-
dant, Brannan, the benefit of his security.
It is not denied that if the transaction was bona fide, that
the conveyance of December, 1847, though defective by reason
of the mistake in regard to the affidavit required by the Act
of 1846, may be set up as a valid contract in equity, and that
the confirmatory deed of April, 1848, would give it full validity.
The case of Alexander vs. Ghiselin, 5 Gill, 138, establishes
this proposition, and as, for the reasons stated, I am of opinion
that the complainant has not succeeded in showing fraud, or
that the conveyances are void under the insolvent laws, it
follows that the complainant must be denied the relief prayed
by his bill. But although the complainant is not entitled to a
decree vacating the conveyances in question, yet inasmuch as
these conveyances constitute mortgages, the case last referred
to shows that the property embraced in them must be taken
possession of and administered by the complainant, as the per-
manent trustee of the mortgagor. It is understood that the
complainant, as receiver, under the appointment and authority
of the Baltimore County Court, has sold the property, but I
do not find among the proceedings a report of the sale, and
therefore it is Impossible to say whether the proceeds will or
will not be sufficient, or more than sufficient, to pay the mort-
gagee's claim. My opinion, then, is, that the bills of sale shall
stand and have effect as mortgages, and that the proceeds of
the will made by the receiver shall be applied to the payment
of the mortgage debt. The receiver should make a report of
his sale, and then the cause should go to the Auditor for an
account. The question of costs will be reserved.
J. H. ING, and T. P. SCOTT, for Complainant.
C. H. PITTS, and 0. S. S. LEARY, for Respondents.

  		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 525   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