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

138 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
the honest conviction that their title was good, shall be subject
to such partition. There certainly would be no equity in so
doing, especially as the property which remains to be divided
between his two other children and their representatives, is
nearly equal in value to the parcels held and claimed by Hardy
and wife, and Mordecai Haines, due allowance being made for
the moneys expended by them in improvements.
It does not clearly appear, from the return of the commis-
sioners, whether the lota, Nos. 1 and 2, comprehend the lands
of which these parties have been in possession. They state
them to be the lands claimed by Mordecai Haines and Nicholas
Hardy, and Eleanor his wife, and it is presumed they are the
same parcels of which they have respectively been in possession,
and upon which they have expended their money in improve-
ments. If this be so, my opinion is, that they are not subject
to partition among the heirs at law of Nathan Haines, and that
the lot, No. 3, remains only to be divided between the two other
heirs, or their representatives.
The commissioners state in their return that the land cannot
be divided among the parties without serious loss to them all,
and that it cannot be divided into more than four lots without
materially reducing ita value, and they give their reasons for
this opinion. But they have only divided it into three parts,
and it does not appear whether the third lot, which, (assuming
lots Nos. 1 and 2 to have been held as aforesaid,) in my opinion,
is the only part subject to partition, is capable of being divided
into two parcels. That is, between the remaining two heirs of
the deceased, excluding Mordecai Haines and Hardy and wife.
It will, therefore, be necessary to remand the commission
with directions to make partition of the real estate whereof the
said Nathan Haines died seized into two parts, according to
the views herein expressed.
ROBERT J. BRENT, for Complainants.
WILLIAM H. G. DORSEY, for Defendant.

  		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 138   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  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives