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

HARRIS VS. MORRIS. 533
from all title, interest, claim and demand of the others, their
heirs and assigns, &c.]
THE CHANCELLOR:
The bill in this case was filed in the year 1833, on the equity
side of Charles County Court, and prays that the defendant
may be compelled to convey to the complainants, Morgan Har-
ris (since deceased) and his wife Etheldra, a parcel of land in said
county, called "Morris Landing." After various proceedings
in the County Court, it was transferred under the act of As-
sembly to this court, and is submitted for decision upon notes
in writing of the solicitors of the parties.
The agreement alleged in the bill is, it is true a parol agree-
ment, but a part performance of it, is distinctly averred, and a
long possession of the party under whom the complainants
claim is also charged.
The answer, however, denies the agreement, and impliedly,
rather than expressly, relies upon the Statute of Frauds.
My opinion is, that the complainant's case is clearly estab-
lished by the proof, if John G. Chapman and Elizabeth Chap-
man are competent witnesses, and I do not see how they can
be considered incompetent. John 6-. Chapman and the sur-
viving complainant were the heirs at law of the late Samuel
Chapman, and after his death, by their deed making partition
of the estate, executed on the 3d of October, 1832. Each
conveyed to the other certain parcels thereof, to be held in
severalty with a covenant that each should hold the parcels so
conveyed free from any claim or demand on the part of the
other, or his or her heirs, but neither covenanted to assure
the title of the other.
In this division the land in question fell to the share of
the complainant, and it is supposed that if she fails in this suit,
there is some sort of responsibility on the part of the witness
to compensate her for the loss, and that, therefore, he is dis-
qualified on the ground of interest. But I do not think so. A
vendor of land, selling in good faith, is not responsible for the
goodness of his title beyond the covenants in his deed. Gouver-

  		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 533   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