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

STOCKETT VS. TAYLOR. 543
ciple was asserted and enforced by the Court in the case of
Bartlett vs. Gale, 4 Paige, 504, in which it was held, that the
lien of the mortgage attached upon the surplus money in
the hands of the sheriff, who sold under an elder judgment,
and that he could not pay such surplus to the mortgagor.
If, to be sure, Taylor had received the money from Barber,
for a valuable consideration paid him, without notice that it
was a part of the purchase-money of the mortgage premises,
the case might be subject to different considerations; 'but the
very deed under which he claimed, advertised him of the fact
that the money was due Barber, " as part of the purchase-
money of the land sold by him to Sheckell, and by the latter
to Sinclair ;" and the registry of the deeds and the admissions
of the answer are sufficient to bring home to him, in fact or
constructively, knowledge that this land was included in the
mortgage, and had been pledged for the payment of the'debt
to the Bank. Certainly, if the defendant Taylor had not ac-
tual knowledge of these circumstances, he had information
enough to put him on inquiry, and that is suificient notice in
equity. Magruder vs. Peter, 11 G. & J; 243, He knew that
in fact, or he is to be treated as knowing, that this land was
mortgaged by Barber to Ann Ridgely for $2,000; that the
mortgage, with a limited reservation, was assigned by Ann
Ridgely to David Ridgely, and by the latter to Welch and
Whittington, to secure them as his endorsers in Bank to the
same amount, and that this surplus remained to Barber, the
mortgagor, after paying prior incumbrances upon the land.
Knowing all this, the mortgage unquestionably fastened upon
the money in his hands and bound it as effectually and firmly
as it did in the hands of Barber his assignor. His subsequent
conduct is strong to show that he so regarded- it. He took the
mortgage from Sinclair on the 28th of August, 1843, to secure
the payment of this money; and on the 9th of January follow-
ing, he actually did assume the debt to the Bank, by substi-
tuting his note for that of Eidgely, endorsed by Welch and
Whittington, the same persons becoming his endorsers. It is
true that Taylor in his answer says (and it also appears by

  		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 543   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