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

CRONISE VS. CLARK. 407
opinion delivered, say, "some contracts made by infants are
binding, such as contracts for necessaries; some are void, and
others voidable, only such as contracts that may be for the
benefit of the infant. But a contract that a court can see and
pronounce to bo to the prejudice of the infant is void." And
the instrument in that case, the release spoken of, was adjudged
to be absolutely void.
Now, it seems to me to be most obvious that the deed in this
case is as evidently prejudicial to the infant as the release in
the case decided by the Court of Appeals. This is the case of
an infant feme covert, joining in a mortgage of her reversionary
interests in real and personal estates, to secure debts due from
her husband, or rather from a commercial firm, of which her
husband was a partner, without any consideration whatever
moving to her. It is a contract from which she cannot pos-
sibly derive a benefit, and which the court cannot fail to see
and pronounce to be to her prejudice. It must, therefore, be
regarded as merely void and incapable of confirmation, the
rule being that contracts void at law are void in equity, and
are, therefore, considered by the latter courts as well as the for-
mer, incapable of being made good by any subsequent acts of
the parties. Newland on Contracts, 496; Blessing vs. House,
3 G-. & J., 290. My opinion, therefore, is, that assuming Mrs.
Cronise to have been a minor at the time she executed the
mortgage, as upon this motion it must be assumed, it is upon
the principle in the case in 3 G. & J., void as to her, and in-
capable of confirmation, and therefore, so far as her rights are
concerned, the injunction must stand.
With respect to William II. V. Cronise and Elizabeth B.
Abbott, the case stands upon different grounds. They were
competent to contract, and there is no averment or pretence
that any fraud or imposition was practiced upon them or cither
of them. And moreover, they are not now here complaining
of the decree passed by this court in July, 1848. If, there-
fore, there is in that decree anything of which they have a
right to complain, relief cannot be afforded them upon this bill.
Whether they or cither of them have such estates in the prop-

  		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 407   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