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

INDEX. 563
ESCHEAT PATENTS.
See PARTITION, 7.
LAND OFFICE, 1 to 3.
EVIDENCE.
1. The recitals in an escheat warrant of the death of a party without heirs,
are not prima facia evidence that the land is liable to escheat so as to
throw the burden of proving the contrary upon the party who resists
the patent. Goodwin vs. Caton, 160.
2. Where a certificate has been regularly returned on an escheat warrant,
and remained long enough in the land office to justify the issuing of a
grant, a reasonable prima facie presumption arises that the land is es-
cheatable. Ib.
3. An escheat grant is prima facie evidence that the land granted is liable
to escheat- Ib.
4. The antedating of notes is not, per se, fraudulent or evidence of a dis-
honest intent, but where parties with a security before them covering
a particular description of notes, make notes which upon their face
are not within its terms, they cannot show by parol that such notes
were antedated in order to bring them within the security. OAto Life
Ins. and Trust Co. vs. Wmn. & Ross, 253.
5. It may be shown by parol evidence which of two parties to a pecuniary
obligation, binding upon both, is the principal debtor, so as to adjust
the equities as between themselves. Brown vs. Stewart, 368.
6. An instrument under seal, attested by a subscribing witness, may be
proved in this state without calling such witness. Shepherd vs. Be-
vans, 408.
7. The president and cashier are competent witnesses for the bank, to
prove at what time a trustee had knowledge of the transfer of certain
stock, part of his trust fund, standing on the books of the bank. Way-
man vs. Jones, 500.
8. Two co-heirs executed a deed of partition, in which they mutually cov-
enanted that each should hold his part of the land free, and discharged
from all title, interest, claim and demand of the other, but neither
covenanted to assure the title of the other. HELD—
That one of these co-heirs is a competent witness for the other in
an action brought by the latter against a third party, involving the
title to a part of the estate conveyed to the plaintiff by the deed
of partition. Morris vs. Harris, 529.
See INSOLVENT DEBTOR, 1, 2.
PRACTICE IN CHANCERY, 5, 6, 15, 40.
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 5, 6.
INFANCY,INFANTS, 4.
LAND OFFICE, 17.
EXCEPTIONS TO TESTIMONY.
See PRACTICE re CHANCERY, 17, 18, 19.
EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.
See PRACTICE IN CHANCERY, 45.
ORPHANS COURT,1 to 10, 13.

  		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 563   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  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives