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

170 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
an escheat warrant if he had known it had escheated. The ex-
pense of acquiring the title would have been no more.
Since taking it up he has paid for it and erected improvements
at some considerable costs. Under these circumstances, the
question is whether, in the language of the late Chancellor, it
would be "according to right, to reason, and to good conscience,"
to deny him a grant. The Chancellor, sitting as Judge of the
Land Office, as remarked in the case from which the above ex-
pressions are taken, "may decree according to equity and good
conscience, and agreeably to the principles established in the
High Court of Chancery, as if the matter were brought before
him by a bill iu chancery." Cunningham vs. Browning, 1
Bland, 319, 320. Now, upon a bill in equity, it could not, it
seems to me, be successfully contended that the State, after
selling her lands, as has been done in this case, receiving the
purchase money, and after the innocent purchaser had erected
improvements upon the property purchased, could reclaim them
upon the ground that the mode in which the title was proposed
to be acquired was not the appropriate one. In this case, the
State has neither been defrauded nor prejudiced, and if she
withholds the grant, will be inflicting a serious injury upon the
purchaser, because, in that event, it would be depriving him of
the privilege of testing the validity of his title in a court of
law. For notwithstanding the patent may issue, its effect in
passing the title may be questioned in a suit at law, and hence
the general rule of the land office to issue the patent when the
riant is doubtful in order that the party may not be deprived
of the privilege of taking the judgment of court of law upon
its efficacy.
For these reasons I deem it right to overrule the caveat to
the certificate for "Dudley's Beginning," but shall rule it good
with reference to the certificate for "Spottsville," in regard to
which no agreement has been made, and consequently as to it
the same equitable considerations do not exist.
JONES, for Caveator.
DONE, for Caveatees.

  		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 170   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