| Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 275 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
PHILPOTT VS. ELLIOTT. 275 wholly unnecessary in the form in which its aid is invoked, and that if a, proper ground is laid, it is its duty to interfere to pre- vent future litigation. But, though this court has unquestionably the power to grant the relief prayed by the bill, provided a clear case of mistake is made out, it is indispensably necessary the alleged error be demonstrated in the clearest and most unequivocal manner. for if there be a reasonable doubt upon the subject, the court must withhold its aid. The necessity of furnishing proofs to the entire satisfaction of the court before it, will act, in cases of this description is shown by the case of Ball &Gill vs. Clagett, 2 Md. Ch. De- cisions, 153, and the authorities there referred to. And it is not only necessary that strong evidence be produced that a mistake was committed, and that the agreement signed by the parties, docs not conform to their intentions, but the stipulation proposed to be introduced, or the correction proposed to be made must be established by equally conclusive proof. Before the agreement will be reformed, and executed as reformed, the court must be perfectly satisfied what the real intention of the parties was, or otherwise it will not interfere. Upon looking at the plat, in this case, there is great difficulty in believing that the defendant, with a full knowledge of the consequences to himself, could have agreed to the line claimed by the bill, and there is evidence that he, upon some occasions, protested in the strongest terms against that line. There is, however; evidence the other way, and in my opinion, as between the lines described in the lease and the line claimed by the claimant as the true line the preponderance of the proof is in favor of the latter, as there cannot be the slightest doubt of the perfect and entire respectability and credibility of the witnesses who have testified upon the subject. But still looking to the whole evidence, and seeing how seri- ously the right?; of the defendant would be prejudiced by estab- lishing that as the true line, I cannot bring myself to think, that the defendant, with a full understanding of its effect, gave his consent to it. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 275 View pdf image (33K) |
|
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.
Maryland State Archives