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

SMALLWOOD VS. HATTON. 99
permitted to say he was defrauded. In point of fact he does
not allege fraud in his bill, but insists that according to the
true construction of this contract his purchase embraced the
piece of land in question. The language of the bill is, that "the
said Hatton has always refused and prohibited your orator from
possessing, using or occupying a part of said land, much the
most fertile and valuable, contained between the last given line
and Piney Branch mentioned in said contract, but which he has
used and possessed himself."
It is, therefore, simply a question of construction and loca-
tion, and that of course depends upon the terms of the bond of
conveyance. These terms are,
"That if the above bound Peter D. Hatton, his heirs or as-
signs, shall well and truly make to the said Richard L. Smallwood,
his heirs or assigns, a good and sufficient warranty deed, to a
certain tract or parcel of land lying in Charles county, and
called by the name of Friendship, beginning from Piney Branch,
where the road crosses to George Boswell's mill, thence with
said road to the first branch of Mattawoman Swamp, thence up
said branch to a ditch leading from the outer line of Friendship
to Mottowomon, thence up the said ditch to the line of Friend-
ship, thence with the said line to Piney Branch, thence down
said branch to the beginning, containing one hundred acres of
land, be the same more or less." And the sole question upon this
part of the case is whether this last line described as running
"thence down said branch to the beginning," shall pursue the
meanderings of the branch or shall be a straight line to the begin-
ning on Piney Branch.
A question, not unlike the present, came up in the Court of
Appeals, in the case of Thomas' Lessee vs. Godfrey et al, 3 Gill
& Johns., 142. There the third line of the patent had a call to
the main falls of the Patapsco, and from that point the descrip-
tion was "with the main falls by a direct line to the first bound
tree." And the question was whether this last line should be
run with the meanders of the stream or directly from the ter-
mination of the third line on the falls to the beginning tree.
Upon this question the judgment of the court was, that the ex-

  		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 99   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