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

McCLELLAN VS. CROOK. 401

THE CHANCELLOR :
Waiving the objection to the answer taken by the complain-
ant, and conceding for the purpose of this motion that it is en-
titled to be treated as if sworn to by the defendant, I am of
opinion that it has not removed the equity of the bill, and con-
sequently that the injunction must be continued.
It cannot be necessary to say that this court disclaims in the
most explicit manner any power to review, in the proper sense
of that term, the decrees of the Court of Appeals, either upon
the state of facts upon which that tribunal acted, or any others.
What is resolved by it in view of those facts, or others, is con-
clusive, and the duty of this court, when required to carry its
mandates into effect, is unqualified obedience.
But it is not, in my opinion, at variance with this principle,
to say, that upon circumstances which were not, and could not,
from the nature of things, have been before the Court of Ap-
peals at the time it passed its decree, it may become the duty
of this court to stay its hand, especially when it is manifest
that, according to the principles settled by the Superior Court,
these circumstances give rise to an equity in direct opposition
to the rigorous execution of its decree.
When the decree in this case was passed by the Court of
Appeals in June, 1846, there was nothing in the record to show
that the possession by Crook of the mortgaged premises contin-
ued subsequently to the period stated in the report of the Au-
ditor, to wit, November, 1844, and, therefore, he could not be
charged with the rent later than that period, but it is now
charged in this bill, and confessed by the answer, that he did
so continue in possession to a later period, the bill alleging that
this possession continued so long as to extinguish the debt, and
the answer, though it does not admit, certainly docs not deny,
this assertion. It is also charged and not denied that Crook.
the assignee of the mortgage, is insolvent, and th;it if the mort-
gagor is now compelled to pay, he will be wholly without remedy.
Now, this certainly presents a case in which all must regret
the inefficiency of the court, if it be incapable to relieve the
complainant. There would, in that event, be a striking defect

  		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 401   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