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

282 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
Watkins, the purchaser, relies upon these proceedings as a
full defence against the application of the new trustee to resell
the land for the payment of the purchase money in case he
fails to pay or bring the same into court as prayed by the
petition.
The case made by the petition of the new trustee in all its
essential features is identical with that of Iglehart vs. Armiger,
1 Bland, 519, where a similar application made by a trustee to
resell land sold under a decree of the court for the payment of
the purchase money, on the ground that the equitable lien of
the vendor still subsisted was overruled. The doctrine of that
case, if sound, (and I certainly approve of it,) is decisive of
this, it being there distinctly adjudicated that the equitable lien
held by the court for the payment of the purchase money of
lanil sold under ita decree, cannot be enforced by a trustee who
has assigned the bonds given for its payment, whether the as-
signment was or was not made with the sanction of the court.
That by such assignment the trustee divested himself of all
title to come before the court in the capacity of plaintiff, and
that the court itself was so entirely without jurisdiction to grant
relief in such a case, that even consent would not authorize it
to interfere. The remedy of the assignee of the bonds is at law.
There can be no sort of doubt that considering the equitable
lien held by the court, the same as if such lien was held by a
natural person, and in the opinion of the Chancellor in Igle-
hart vs. Armiger, it has always been so viewed, such lien did
not pass to the assignees of the bond in this case. The language
of the assignment is such as to forbid it. It is without recourse
and brings the case within the express terms of the law of
Schnebley & Lewis vs. Ragan, 7 G-. &., 120, in which the
Court, of Appeals decided that such an assignment of a bond
given for the purchase money of real estate, "produced an ex-
tinguishment of the vendor's lien, because so far as he was con-
cerned it amounted to a payment and satisfaction of his claim."
And the same principle was adjudicated by this court in Dixon
vs. Dixon, 1 Md. Ch. Decisions, 220.
Considering the case made by the petition of the trustee in

  		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 282   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  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives