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

408 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
erty conveyed by the mortgage and decreed to be sold as this
court ought to sell, is not a question to be considered upon
this bill, which seeks to vindicate and protect the rights of Mrs.
Cronise, and no one else.
It may be that there is property embraced in the mortgage,
and directed to be sold by the decree, which, under the provi-
sions of the act of 1833, ch. 181, is not liable to be sold by
the summary proceeding authorized by that act. The second
section declares that "in order to facilitate the enforcement of
mortgages of real property and estate in the city of Baltimore,
that in all cases of conveyances by way of mortgage of lands
or hereditaments or chattels real, situate in the city of Balti-
more, and where, in the said conveyances, the mortgagor shall
declare his assent," &c. The mortgage in this case embraces
moneyed securities and bank stocks, and to that extent the sura'
mary and peculiar proceeding prescribed by the legislature
would seem to be inapplicable. But the decree was passed,
and we have now nothing to do with that question, or any other,
not affecting the rights of the complainant in this case, and the
injunction, therefore, except as to her, will be dissolved. The
statement, verified by affidavit, directed by the 3d section of
the act of 1833, ch. 181, to be filed, may be filed at any time
before the sale, according to the terms of the section.
ADDISON, ALEXANDER and PRESTON, for Complainant.
GLENN and RIDGELY, for Defendants.
JOSEPH SHEPHERD AND OTHERS
vs DECEMBER TERM, 1850.
MARY ANN BEVANS AND OTHERS.
[LIMITATIONS—CLAIMS ALLOWED BY ORPHANS COURT—PRACTICE.]
THE act of 1849, ch. 224, suspending the operation of the act of Imitations in
certain cases, is prospective and not retrospective in its operation.
An instrument under seal, attested by a subscribing witness, may be proved in
this state without calling such witness.

  		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 408   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