|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COOMBS v. JORDAN. 303
Before the year 1732, it was, in general, true, that lands in
Maryland were no otherwise liable to be taken or extended in
satisfaction of debts than according to the law of England; and
prior to that time there are many instances in which lands were so
extended by elegit. But the peculiar circumstances of the pro-
vince; the scarcity of money, and the small proportion of personal
to real estate seem to have given rise to a wish among the people,
that land should, in some way, be made entirely subject to be
seized and sold for the satisfaction of debts. This general dispo-
sition is indicated by some principles peculiar to our law in rela-
tion to imperfect legal titles; to equitable interests in land; and to
the real estates of deceased debtors which were established as a
part of our code antecedent to that period.
In that interval of time between the designation of a tract of
land, by a specification of a special warrant or otherwise, and the
obtaining of a patent for it, the purchaser was considered as the
holder of an inchoate legal title, a perfectible legal interest regarded
as a sort of chattel real, which upon being completed by a patent
was deemed a legal title, from the date of such designation, to all
intents and purposes. So long as the right remained as a chattel
real it was, like all other chattels, liable to be taken in execution
and sold for the satisfaction of debts; but a patent, by perfecting
the legal title, immediately removed it beyond the reach of credi-
tors in that way. To prevent this any creditor was allowed to file
a caveat in the Land Office for the express purpose of stopping a
patent, and so continuing the interest as a chattel real, and keep-
ing it within reach of his remedies. But this imperfect legal title,
although deemed a chattel real for the benefit of creditors, was, in
all other respects, considered as real estate; and as such descended
to his heirs, and did not pass into the hands of the executor or
administrator. Yet where the debtor himself, not having, during
his life-time, perfected his title, had died without heirs, a patent
was directed to be issued to his executor or administrator to be
treated as assets for the satisfaction of his debts and legacies.
These were the settled rules of law with regard to any specified
tract of land for which an individual had obtained from the Lord
Proprietary an imperfect legal title short of a patent, (x)
But such a peculiar chattel real, as it was called, must not be
confounded with a mere common warrant, before it had been laid
(x) Land Hol, Assis. 91, 115, 201 and 494, note.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
