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 4, Page 102   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

102 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
The complainant not having availed himself of the libery to
amend his bill, the petitioner, on the 9th of June, 1853, filed
another petition, in which, after alleging his neglect to do so,
she asked that she might be heard on the merits, upon the
pleadings and proofs as they then stood, and upon this petition
an order was passed directing the cause to stand for hearing at
the then ensuing July term.
After this, that is on the 31st of October following, the com-
plainant filed an amended bill, in which, after stating the death
of Peter D. Hatton, intestate, and that there was no adminis-
tration upon his estate, he avers that the petitioner hath no in-
terest in the judgment, her claim thereto being, as he alleges,
fraudulent, and set up to deprive him of his right to relief
against the same. The petitioner, Eleanor B. Hatton, is made
a party to this amended bill, and she is required to answer it,
but not under oath. She has answered it, maintaining that the
assignment to her of the cause of action upon which the judg-
ment was rendered, was bona fide, and for a valuable consider-
ation, and there is no proof of the allegation to the contrary in
the amended bill.
Under these circumstances, I am of opinion, that the com-
plainant has not made out a title to be relieved against the
judgment. The bond of conveyance is drawn most carelessly.
It binds Hatton to convey the land to the complainant, but
says nothing about the previous payment of the purchase money.
Still, I suppose, a conveyance would not be decreed by a court
of equity without payment or tender of the money, and I can
see no sufficient reason for staying the collection of the money,
unless upon a bill offering to pay the whole amount, upon the
execution by the vendor of a deed in compliance with the con-
dition of the bond and praying for an injunction to stay proceed-
ings at law to enforce payment, until a deed with proper cove-
nants should be executed. The present bill is not one of that
character. It does not allege that the amount for which the
judgment was rendered is the balance due for the land, and
offer to pay it upon receiving a proper conveyance. It does,
to be sure, make some loose objections to the title, but its alle-

  		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 4, Page 102   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  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives