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

218 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
cover any portion of the money so paid to him by the Company,
and if so, the agreement shows the proportion, or gives the
data by which the amount may be ascertained.
My opinion is, that there can be no recovery against the
representatives of Mr. George Calvert in respect of this money.
Whatever may have been the intention and purpose of the par-
tics to the deed, it is very certain that Mr. Calvert could only
convey to the Company his own title to the land, and the deed,
in fact, professes to convoy nothing more. It does not attempt
to convey the title of his children, and if it did, the materials
are not before me by which I could confirm the contract, con-
sidering it a contract inside for or on behalf of infants, and
embraced within the provisions of the twelfth section of the act
of 1785, ch. 72, which authorizes the court to confirm contracts
made for or on behalf of infants, when, upon examination of
all the circumstances, it shall appear for their interest and ad-
vantage to do so.
It will become necessary, I presume, to send the case to the
Auditor, to state an account ascertaining the amount due from
the defendant, Mr. Charles B. Calvert, as the legal representa-
tive of his father, or from him and his co-trustee, George H.
Calvert, on account of the estate of the maternal grandmother
of the deceased, Mrs. Carter, but as I understood in the course
of the argument that some agreement would probably be made
which would facilitate the account, I will not at this time pass
an order.
The bill does not raise the question, and I do not propose at
this time to express any opinion in reference to the trust created
by the marriage settlement of the 13th of January, 1832.
J. M. CAMPBELL and K. JOHNSON, for Complainants.
THOMAS S. ALEXANDER, for Defendants.
[The parties not being able to make any agreement as indi-
cated in the opinion, the Chancellor subsequently passed an.
order referring the cause to the Auditor to state the account as
above decided. From tins order the defendants appealed, and
this appeal is Still pending.]

  		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 218   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