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

HARRIS VS. MORRIS. 531
and rented the same to sundry persons. He then denies that
there was any agreement, parol or written, and insists "that if
there was any agreement, it was not reduced to writing, and
signed by the parties, as required in such cases by law," and
also denies that the caution money was paid, or possession taken
under any such agreement as is set up in the bill.
The testimony chiefly relied upon to sustain the allegations
of the bill, was that of John G. Chapman, a son and heir at
law of Samuel Chapman, and Elizabeth Chapman, the widow
of said Samuel Chapman.
John G. Chapman proves, in substance, that he frequently
heard both Samuel Chapman and the defendant, Morris, say,
that the vacancy was discovered by Chapman, and at that time
the adjoining land was owned by one of the Jenifer family.
That Chapman told Morris of the vacancy, and the latter pro-
posed to take it up in his own name, alleging that Jenifer had
onceinterfered with him in relation to some land; that Chap-
man consented that the land should be taken up in Morris'
name, and agreed with Morris that he should have one-half,
and Chapman the other, and the land was taken up with that
understanding and agreement; that the warrant was obtained
in Morris' name, and the patent issued to him in virtue of the
understanding between him and Chapman, that the land was
to be held as their joint property. That witness has also been
told both by said Chapman and Morris, that the former was to
purchase the latter's half of "Morris Landing," provided he got
the adjoining land, which had been owned by Jenifer, and sold
to one Dunnington, and was to allow him the price he paid for
Dunnington's land, $8 per acre, and Dunnington's land was
purchased by Chapman in 1821. That the land was always
held by said Chapman, except a part of the shore, which was
rented one year to a man from Virginia as a fishery, and for
the rent of which suit was brought in Morns' name, because
he and Chapman both having been present at the renting, it
was agreed between them that Morris should receive tie rent
as Chapman was a witness to the contract, but that Morris
told witness the whole land then belonged to Chapman, who

  		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 531   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  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives