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

26 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
of the complainant George, died, and he thereupon in his own
right, and as the next friend of his infant children, filed a bill
of revivor and supplement, in which it is again charged that it
would be for the interest and advantage of all parties in-
terested that the land should be sold, and which allegation is
again denied by the answer of Godwin and wife. The nature
of the proof taken, appears from the opinion of the Chan-
cellor.]
THE CHANCELLOR :
This bill, as has been correctly observed, is founded upon
the provisions of the 12th section of the Act of 1785, ch. 72,
which authorizes the Chancellor to direct lands, tenements,
&c., to be sold, in which infants, &c., have a joint interest, or
interest in common with any other person or persons, when it
shall appear, upon hearing and examination of all the circum-
stances, that it will bo for the interest and advantage both of
the infant, &c., and of the other person or persons concerned,
that a sale should be made. It is not sufficient that one or
any number of the parties less than the whole, would be bene-
fited by the sale, but it must appear to the Chancellor that
all will be benefited by selling the property. And, as will be
seen upon reference to the case of Tomlinson vs. McKaig, 5
Gill, 256, 274, the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be sus-
tained, unless the bill alleges that it will be for the interest
and advantnge of all parties interested, that the land should
be sold.
The bill in this case contains the necessary allegations, and
although by the supplemental bill, the infants appear as par-
tics complainant, and by their next friend concur with the adult
party in making the amendment, that does not at all dispense
with the necessity of proof in support of it, as has been several
times decided by this Court. If the infants had been made
defendants, and by their answer by their guardian had ad-
mitted the facts alleged in the bill, still there would be no
decree against them, but upon proof of all the material allega-
tions. Kent and Boyle vs. Taneyhill, 6 G. & J., 1.

  		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 26   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