Volume 1 — Maryland Chancery

This suit was instituted here in January, 1811, by the plaintiffs, who were the cestui que trusts, under a deed of trust, against Samuel and Tench Ringgold, to obtain an account of the trust property, and the payment and delivery of the balance in their hands.

[The object of the bill filed in this case was to procure the-specific performance of an agreement entered into on the 8th July, 1844, between the defendant, Thomas B. Watts, of Baltimore county, and Thomas Petherick, an unnaturalized foreigner, then residing in Philadelphia.

[On the 24th of April, 1839, a decree passed this court for the sale of the real estate of Robert Barry, deceased, for distribution among his heirs at law, and appointing Bernard W. Campbell trustee for that purpose.

<p>[By a decree of this court passed on the 2nd of August, 1837, John S. Selby was appointed trustee to sell certain parcels of real estate, which had been devised by Edward Williams, deceased, to his widow, Editha Williams, for life, with remainder in fee to four of his grand-children. On the 5th of the same month he gave bond as such trustee, with Nicholas I. Watkins and Basil Shephard as his sureties, and on the 7th of September following, he sold the said property on the terms specified by the decree, viz. The interest on the purchase money to be paid annually, and the principal in five years from the day of sale. The tenant for life was duly paid the said interest, and from the 27th of May, 1842, to the 7th of September, the trustee received on account of the principal the sum of $2011, for which he did not account, and since that time he became utterly insolvent.</p> <p>On the 8th of July, 1844, a petition was filed by the grandchildren of the testator to obtain from said Selby an account of his proceedings as trustee, in reply to which, he stated, that he had received the sum above mentioned, with which, after making certain deductions, he had, with the consent of the parties interested, charged himself as guardian to two of said grand-children. As guardian to these children he had, on the 12th of June, 1837, given bond with Thomas Robinson and Harriet Selby for his sureties. And on the 10th of April, 1847, another petition was filed in this cause by Charles R. Stewart, administrator of Thomas Robinson, deceased, Harriet Selby, Nicholas I. Watkins and Basil Shephard, expressing a doubt as to which set of sureties, Selby should be held liable for his default, and praying the court, upon a view of all the circumstances of the case, to determine their respective rights and obligations. A commission to take testimony in reference to the matter of this petition was issued and returned; and there was also returned with the same a mortgage dated the 21st of October, 1843, executed by said Selby to Nicholas I. Watkins, one of the sureties on his bond as trustee, and James H. Watkins, who with the said Nicholas I. and the said Basil Shephard, had incurred certain responsibilities on his account; against which, the mortgage was intended to indemnify them, and “also to save harmless and indemnify the said Nicholas I. Watkins and Basil Shephard as sureties on his trustee’s bond hereinbefore mentioned.”</p> <p>Selby, whose testimony was taken under this commission, denied that he had. ever charged himself as guardian with the money received by him from the purchasers of the estate of Williams ; he stated that he had only intended doing this on certain terms, which he described, and which he said had not been complied with. To a cross interrogatory on the part of Stewart and Mrs. Selby, he replied that it was his impression, that when he executed the mortgage he did not know the exact sum due, but whatever money he had received as trustee, it was his intention, and the said Watkins’ intention, to have secured by the said deed ; that he was not asked for the mortgage, but gave it of his own motion.</p> <p>The case having been argued before the Chancellor, he delivered the following opinion, after first stating the facts :]</p>

This bill was filed, on the 10th of July 1802, by Francis Dea-Idns, executor of Will'iam Deakins, and Benjamin Stoddart, against Benny Penn, Roby Penn, Charles Penn, junr., William Penn, Betsy Penn, William G. Penn, Sarah Penn, and Caleb Penn, .grantees and heirs of the late Charles Penn, senr., and JYathan Waters and Evan Gaither.

[In the year 1795, Samuel Chase, by virtue of a warrant of resurvey, taken out in 1793, on a tract of land then owned by him, called “Mansfield Purchase,” took in several vacant parcels, some of which, as appears by these proceedings, were not contiguous to the Original tract, and obtained a patent in 1795, by the name of “Chase’s • Forest.” In 1797, he sold a part of this land to William Iiobbs, who, by his will, devised the same to defendant.

[Thomas P. Harrison, deceased, late of Baltimore, in March, 1846, effected an insurance of his life in the National Loan Fund and Life Assurance Company, (chartered by act of the British parliament,… Held: and also as a security for additional advances, at that time made by him, to the assignor.

[The question involved in this case was, whether the complainants were dowable out of lands held by their respective husbands, under leases for ninety-nine years, renewable forever, containing covenants on the part of the lessor, to convey the fee simple to the lessees, their executors, administrators or assigns, when requested so to do. ]

[Sundry judgments having been recovered against the defendant Brien, one at March term, 1841, five at November terns 1841, and twelve at March term, 1842, writs of fieri facias were issued upon two of them, returnable at March term, 1842. and upon the others returnable at March term, 1843.

[This case was heard on exceptions to the sale made by the trustee appointed to sell the lands of James Cunningham, deceased, for payment of his debts. According to the requisitions of the decree under which he acted, the property was first exposed at public sale, on the 8th September, 1846. The bids were rejected by the trustee for insufficiency, but the advertisements in the papers were still continued by him.

George A. Hughes and Christopher Hughes, by their petition, filed on the 11th of April, 1825, stated, that their father had died intestate, seized of lands lying in Baltimore and Anne Arundel counties, which had descended to the petitioners and his other children, who could not agree upon a division thereof; and that the intestate had left a widow. Whereupon they prayed, that commissioners might be appointed to make partition of the estate, See.

This bill was filed on the 29th July, 1824, by James Beaver and Eliza his wife, against Lewis Reynolds, Allen Reynolds, and others, the heirs of the late Tobias Reynolds, to obtain a partition among them of the real estate- of which he had died seized. The defendants answered; and on the 30th of March 1825, a decree was passed, directing the estate to be sold for the purpose of effecting a division of its value, as it was incapable of a specific' partition.

<p>The bill, filed ,on the 31st May 1816, states, that the late Charles Wallace, by Ms last will, devised his real and personal estate to Leonard Sellman and Charles W.. Hanson, to be by them, after the payment of his debts and certain legacies, divided among the plaintiffs and defendants; that Sellman is dead; that Hanson, the surviving trustee, holds the property and refuses to execute the trust; and that a partition of the real estate cannot be made without loss. Whereupon they prayed a sale and division of the proceeds. No opposition having been made to this prayer, a decree was passed the 1st of March, 1817, directing the,real estate to be sold, and appointing Midiólas Brewer trustee for that purpose, who made sale thereof accordingly.</p> <p>On the 9th of August 1819, Sarah II. Smith filed a petition in behalf of herself and the other creditors of the late Charles Wallace, stating, that in April 1810, she had obtained a judgment against him in his lifetime for ¿6450 4s. Id.; that she 'is informed that several judgments have been obtained against his executor, upon which executions have issued, which have been returned nulla bona ; that she cannot obtain payment from the personalty; and therefore prays to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the real estate in the hands of the trustee; and that notice be given to the heirs, devisees, and creditors.</p>

<p>[JURISDICTION — -REMEDY AT LAW — LIMITATIONS-—NOTICE OF TRUST.]</p> <p>The allegations of the bill are, that forty-six shares of the stock of the Manhattan Company, of New York, were transferred to the defendant, Joseph White, in trust for the complainants, prior to the year 1839 ; that in January, 1840, said Joseph, by letter of attorney, empowered Campbell P. White to sell and transfer said shares to the defendant, John C. White, which, in January and February of the same year, was accordingly done. That said defendant knew the stock was trust property, but had made no returns of the proceeds to complainants, though payment was duly demanded of him. The bill then prays that John C. White may account for the sales of said stock and pay over the proceeds thereof, and for further relief. Upon the question of jurisdiction, it was Held—</p> <p>That whether John C. White, the defendant, is himself to be regarded as the purchaser of this stock, or as the agent to sell and account for the same to the plaintiffs, the remedy at law is, in either aspect, complete and ample without the aid of a court of equity.</p> <p>The transactions out of which the claim arose occurring early in 1840, and the bill not having been filed until January, 1846, the statute of limitations was held to be a flat bar to the plaintiffs’ right to recover.</p> <p>If the relation of trustee and cestui gne trust once existed between these parties, that relation terminated as soon as the stock was sold, and the obligation to pay over the proceeds supervened, and then the right of action accrued and limitations began to run.</p> <p>The statute of limitations does not apply to a purely technical trust, of which a court of chancery has exclusive jurisdiction.</p> <p>The answer of John C. White denied notice of the trust, and it appearing, by proof, that he acted merely as the agent of his father, Campbell C. White, in the sale of this stock, and had paid over the proceeds to his principal, in which payment the complainants had acquiesced for more than five years, upon the merits of the case it was Held—</p> <p>That under these circumstances it would be very hard and setting a dangerous precedent, to hold him liable to pay it a second time.</p>

<p>This bill was filed, in Baltimore County Court, on the 25th day of February, 1817, by William McDonald, against John Rogers and Nicholas Strike; and, on the 21st of May, 1819, the bill was so amended by consent, as to allow Samuel McDonald also to come in as a plaintiff; and, that the claim should be made as due to them as partners, under the firm of McDonald fy Son.</p> <p>It is stated in the bill, as thus amended, that the plaintiffs are and have been some time past partners in trade, under the firm of McDonald if Son; that, some time previous to the year 1811, a partnership had been formed and carried on, between the defendant Rogers and a certain Robert Henderson, under the firm of Henderson 4r Rogers, who as such contracted considerable debts; and, among others, that the firm of Henderson 4" Rogers became, and are now indebted to the plaintiffs, as the firm of McDonald If Son, to the amount of about six thousand dollars ; that Henderson if Rogers, becoming embarrassed in their affairs, Rogers, for the purpose of preventing his private property from béing made responsible for the debts of the firm, on the 16th of January, 1811, by two separate deeds of that date, assigned two lots of ground in the city of Baltimore, which he held as chattels real, subject to a ground rent, to the other defendant Nicholas Strike. These two deeds are exhibited as parts of the bill; the one is expressed to be in consideration of the sum of five hundred dollars for one of the lots; and, in the other, for the other lot, it is said to be in consideration of the sum of nineteen hundred dollars. In other respects, they are in the usual form of such instruments of assignment of leasehold property.</p> <p>It is further stated and averred in the bill, that the plaintiffs have every reason to believe, that there was no bona fide sale of those lots from Rogers to Strike ; that no consideration passed between them; that if Strike paid Rogers any money it was subsequently, and by way of loan on the security of those deeds; and they were understood by the parties to be expressly to avoid the payment of the creditors of Rogers, or of Henderson if Rogers. And, as evidence of this alleged fraud, the plaintiffs state, that a considerable part of the money paid by Strike to Rogers, was expended by Strike on one of the lots, after the execution of the deeds, and charged to Rogers as a part of the purchase money; that another portion of the pretended purchase money was expended by Rogers in erecting a furnace, and 'other permanent buildings on the other lot; that another part of the alleged purchase money was a sum paid by Strike to Jacob Small, long after the execution of those deeds, and even after the application of Rogers for the benefit of the insolvent laws, and he, Strike, had been appointed the trustee of Rogers; that Rogers, during two years after the date of those deeds, continued to receive the rents, and to -pay the ground-rents and taxes of those lots; that Strike, since the execution of the deeds, has often promised Rogers to reconvey the lots on the repayment of the money paid by him; and that, in October 1812, the defendant, Rogers, applied to Baltimore County Court for the benefit of the insolvent laws, on which occasion the parties procured the defendant, Strike, to be named as his trustee, the better to conceal those fraudulent assignments.</p> <p>Upon which the bill prays, that those deeds of assignment may be declared null and void; that the lots may be sold for the benefit of the creditors of Rogers, and of Henderson & Rogers; that Strike may be compelled to account for the rents and profits of the lots from the date of the deeds; and that the plaintiffs may have a subpoena against Rogers and Strike to answer, &c. But there is no prayer for general relief.</p> <p>This bill propounds as an interrogatory to be answered by the defendants, " whether, at the period of executing the said conveyances, the said Henderson & Rogers had not actually stopped payment as a commercial house; and whether certain property of theirs had not been seized by certain persons alleging themselves creditors ?” But it is not alleged, that Robert Henderson, the partner of Rogers, was dead or insolvent; nor is it distinctly averred, that the partnership is actually insolvent; nor is Henderson made a party to this suit.</p> <p>The defendant, Nicholas Strike, on the 29th of November 1817, put in his answer to this bill, in which he says, that he knows nothing of any debt being due from Henderson 4r Rogers to the plaintiffs; that the deeds of assignment were made by Rogers to him bona fide ; the full consideration money, as set forth in' them, having been paid by him to Rogers ; and they were not executed to him to cover any loan of money due by Henderson Rogers, or either of them; nor were those lots conveyed to him in trust, or by way of mortgage or security, or to evade the claims of the creditors of Henderson & Rogers, or of either of them; that Henderson & Rogers, or either of them, were not indebted to him previous to the execution of those deeds; that he purchased those lots absolutely, for his own use, and paid for them out of his own moneys; that after he made the purchase, he improved one of them, by erecting additional buildings thereon, at his own expense, for which he never did charge Rogers; that after he had obtained possession of the lots, he leased one of them for a term of years; and the tenants, not Rogers, erected on it a furnace which is of no use to him, Strike, and which the tenants have a right to remove; that after he purchased, Rogers never received the rents, nor paid the ground rents and taxes with his, Strike’s, consent; that he never promised Rogers to reconvey the property to him on his repaying the purchase money; that he paid the whole purchase money to Rogers, and never paid any part of it to Jacob Small; that Rogers continued to occupy one of the lots after the execution of the deeds; and on his failing to pay the rent, he, Strike, distrained his property for the rent in arrear, and thus obtained payment; and finally, that he was appointed trustee under the insolvent laws for Rogers ; but never, as such, received any of his property.</p> <p>Upon this answer the defendant, Strike, rested his defence ; he never asked or obtained leave to put in any other answer; nor did he in fact ever put upon file any paper purporting to be a further answer to this bill.</p> <p>On the 30th of March, 1818, the defendant, John Rogers, filed his answer, in which he states, that he entered into a partnership with Robert Henderson about the year 1807 or 1808, which continued until the year 1811, when they failed; that he owes the plaintiffs, after deducting a small payment made to them, nearly six thousand dollars; that a few days after the failure of the firm of Henderson 4r Rogers, he executed the deeds exhibited as parts of the bill, to Strike, in order to secure the property therein mentioned for the benefit of the creditors of Henderson fy Rogers, and of his own creditors, so as to save it from those who were the creditors of Henderson before the partnership, and also in trust to preserve the surplus for himself and family; that this was the understanding and agreement between him and Strike, who did not pay, or agree to pay any part of the money which was the nominal consideration of those deeds; that those deeds were entirely voluntary, and were not intended to operate as a sale, or to become such in any event, but were merely to remain as a trust; for the property thus conveyed was worth at that time, much more than the consideration money expressed in the deeds, and he had been offered four thousand dollars for it by these plaintiffs; that at the time he executed those deeds, neither he, nor the firm of Henderson fy Rogers, owed any thing to Strike, nor were those conveyanees made in contemplation of future advances of money from Strike, although he afterwards received such advances from him: that in October 1812, he applied for the benefit of the insolvent laws, and obtained a release of his person, and Strike was appointed his trustee, as being already in possession of the principal part of his property, but he has not since applied for or obtained a final discharge; that he himself continued to occupy one of the lots, on which there was a good dwellinghouse, about eighteen months after the date of the deeds, without any agreement, or even suggestion, on the part of Strike, of his being under any obligation to pay rent for it; that the other lot, on which there was a small dwellinghouse, was rented, and he received the rent for his own use for more than eighteen months, after the date of the deeds, without any molestation frond Strike ; that he, this defendant, constantly paid the ground-rent, taxes, and all other dues, incident to the ownership of those lots, during his residence in one of them, and for a long time afterwards; that during that period he borrowed of Strike, from time to time, about seventeen hundred dollars, and laid it out in erecting a furnace on one of the lots which he carried on about two years and a half in conjunction with McArdle $• Coulson, to whom Strike granted a lease of it for ten years, reserving rent; that by the persuasion of Strike, he gave up to him the lot on which he resided, and removed to another house nearer and more convenient to the furnace; that before'he left his house, being much embarrassed in his affairs, on the persuasion of .Strike, he consented to a colourable distress and sale of his effects for rent; but that he continued to hold possession of the property, which he used, and afterwards sold as his own, without any claim being made by Strike; that about eighteen months after Strike had taken possession of the lot so delivered to him, he made some improvements on it, an account of the expenses of which, as charged to this defendant, together with the sums advanced for erecting the furnace, and some other small sums, amounting to about three thousand dollars, Strike shewed to this defendant, and assured him, as he had often done on other occasions, that on the payment of the amount, the property should be reconveyed; that this defendant afterwards tendered to Strike the whole amount, so claimed by him, and demanded a reconveyance of the property; but Strike refused to comply. And finally, this defendant consents, that the properly be sold and the proceeds applied, under the direction of the court, to the payment of his just debts, reserving the surplus to him and his faihily, &c.</p> <p>The plaintiffs having put in a general replication to those answers, a commission was issued, to Carlisle in Pennsylvania, under which the deposition of one witness was taken, returned, and filed on the 23d of March 1819. Another commission was issued to take testimony in the city of Baltimore, under which the depositions of thirty-six witnesses were taken ; and among that number the deposition of the defendant Rogers was taken, under a special order of the court, subject to all just exceptions. This commission was closed on the 2d of April 1819; and soon after filed in court. Among the papers of this case there is a document marked as having been filed on the 15th April 1819, which is entitled in these words, “ The answer of Nicholas Strike, of the city of Baltimore, to the petition of William McDonald, filed in Baltimore County Court against this defendant.” There were sundry deeds and other documents filed by the parties, as evidence in the case. From the proofs, thus collected, it appears that the claims and allegations of the plaintiffs, 'as set forth in their bill, were substantially and sufficiently sustained.</p>

[This bill was filed for the specific performance of a contract entered into by the defendant’s testator, Robert W. Bowie, of Prince George’s county, with the complainants, trading under the firm of John Sullivan .and Sons, in Baltimore.

[The object of the bill in this case was the sale of certain premises which had been mortgaged to the complainant by the defendant, to secure to the former the payment of $500 00, with interest from the 15th October, 1840.

[The bill in this case stated that Sater P. Walker, by deed of the 29th of October, 1830, conveyed a certain lot of ground in the city of Baltimore to John W. Osgood, (believed to be a non-resident,) in trust for Catharine Ann Walker, wife of the grantor, for her life, with remainder to the children of the grantor, in the deed named, equally, to receive the rents and profits to their separate use; and after their deaths, to the children of each respectively, in fee simple,…

<p>[In the year 1833, Benjamin Childs, one of the original defendants, (since deceased,) who had resided^in Pennsylvania, for several years, removed into this state, and engaged in mercantile business in Baltimore. On the fourth of December, of the same year, and but a few months afterwards, finding himself in embarrassed circumstances, he executed to the defendant, Baker, a deed of all his estate of every description, intrust, in the first place to pay the necessary expenses of executing the trust and five per cent, commission on all moneys received by the trustee, in virtue thereof; secondly, to pay in full, certain specified debts; thirdly, to pay in full, or rateably in case of a partial deficiency of the trust fund, such of the creditors of the grantor as should in a specified time assent to the terms of the deed, and release all demands against him to the day of its date ; fourthly, to the use of the other creditors of the grantor; and fifthly to pay the surplus to the grantor, his executors, administrators or assigns. At December session, 1833, Childs applied to the legislature for a special act, which was passed on the 27th February, 1834, authorising the insolvent commissioners to extend to him the benefit of the insolvent laws without requiring the usual proof of a two years residence in the state. His application under this act was made on the 10th March following, and the complainant was appointed his permanent trustee. Sundry creditors of Childs assented to the terms of the deed, and in consideration of the provisions made in it for the payment of their debts, released and discharge him therefrom. It appeared from the proof that the said Childs was insolvent, when he removed into the state and continued so down to the time when the deed was executed, prior to which time there were suits and judgments against him.</p> <p>The bill was filed by the complainant to have this deed set aside as fraudulent under the insolvent laws, it having been made in contemplation of applying for their benefit. The answers, denied that Childs at the time of executing said deed intended applying for the benefit of the insolvent laws, or that he knew himself to be insolvent, and the separate answer of Childs stated his ignorance, at the time of executing the deed, of the possibility of his obtaining a special act of the legislature in his favor.</p> <p>The Chancellor, after stating the- facts of the case, referred to the cases of Heckley vs. Farmers and Merchants’ Bank, 5 G. Sr J.,377, and CrawfordSf Sellman vs. Taylor,6 G. J., 332, to show that the meaning of the acts of 1812, ch. 77, and 1816,. ch. 221, making void any deed, &c., to a creditor, made by any person with a view, or under an expectation of being or becoming an insolvent debtor, and with an intent thereby to give an undue and improper preference to such creditor, was, that the party executing the deed, shall at the time, “intend to take the benefit of the insolvent laws.” He said it was necessary to show, not only that an undue and improper preference was given by the debtor, but also that this was done “with a view or under an expectation of taking the benefit of the insolvent laws,” and as to whether this had been done in this case he said : “It is not contended in this case, nor could it be, that there is any direct evidence, that Childs at the date of the deed, intended to make application for the benefit of the insolvent laws; but it is said, that such intention may be established by facts and circumstances as in other cases, and the case of Dulaney vs. Hoffman, 7 Gill ¿r Johns., 170, is referred to in support of the proposition.. There can be no doubt that such is the rule, and the inquiry then is, whether the facts and circumstances of this case are sufficiently strong to make out'the intent.]</p>

[Thomas T. Wheeler,, on the 19th March, 1844, executed to Richard J. Bowie, a conveyance of all his property, real, personal and mixed, in trust to sell for the benefit of his creditors. On the 1st February, 1847, the trustee, who had partly executed the trust, filed his bill in this court, making John H. Hilleary, and others of the creditors, parties, for a sale of the property, and for the direction óf the court as to the management of the trust.

[The bill filed in this cause, stated, that on the 3d day of January, 1843, Robert Stewart of Anne Arundel county, executed a mortgage of certain real and personal property, the latter consisting partly of slaves, to Henry H. Brown, the complainant, and Thomas M. Camden, to secure them in the sum of $1200, with interest from the 6th May, 1841, and also against any future liabilities, which they might incur in his behalf; that this debt having been reduced, to the sum of $424…

[This case was brought before the court on a demurrer to the bill — the arguments of the solicitors for the parties, having been submitted to the Chancellor in writing. The bill was filed by the grand-daughter of Daniel McComesky, deceased, and her husband, against the defendants, stating that the latter professed to claim a portion of the lands of the deceased, through one of his devisees, also deceased.

[The bill in this case was filed by the Washington University of Baltimore, and the surviving trustees under a deed of trust from said university, stating that said trustees and certain cestui que trusts under said deed, filed a bill in this court against the university and Edward Green, claiming a sale of the property conveyed by the deed, according to its provisions; and stating that Green claimed- the same as purchaser under an execution against the university, recovered…

This bill was filed, on the 7th of October, 1825, by Martha Hewitt, against Eli Hewitt, her husband, to obtain an allowance for alimony; upon the ground, that he had treated her with great cruelty and violence, and that he had positively refused to permit her to live with him, or to provide any adequate maintenance for her, although he had a large real and personal estate, as specified in a schedule exhibited with the bill.

It appears, that Fielder Gantt mortgaged two parcels of land im Frederick county, the one called Foufs Delight, and the other The Resurvey on Beauty, to the late James Hunter, who afterwards made' his will, and died; that Hunter, by his will, directed his lands to be sold by his executors, for the payment of his debts; that his' executors had the mortgages foreclosed, and afterwards sold those lands to George Schnertzell, and gave him a bond for a conveyance on the payment…

[The bill filed in this cause, alleged, that on the 30th May, 1838, proceedings having been previously instituted by the Annapolis and Elk Ridge Rail Road Company, for condemning a a portion of the complainant’s land, required for the construction of their road, a jury convened for that purpose by the company, met and condemned certain land of the complainant for its use, (which the inquisition stated, was condemned as of an absolute estate in perpetuity,) and awarded to him…

[This case originated in the equity side of Baltimore County-Court, and was thence transferred to this court.

It is stated in the bill, which was filed on the 14th of July? 1823, that in the year 1803 Jesse Burch died intestate, and that administration on his personal estate was granted by the Orphans Court of Washington county, in the District of Columbia, to his widow, Jane Burch, who took possession of his personal estate accordingly: among which personalty were three negro slaves, as mentioned in the inventory returned by her; that since the death of the intestate, Jesse, those…

[The bill in this case alleged that in the spring of 1845, the defendants agreed to purchase of the complainant, certain lands in Howard district, on which there were erected a cotton factory and other improvements, for the sum of $20,000, of which $5000, were to be paid in cash on the delivery of possession, fixed for 1st June, 1845, $1666 66|, in twelve months thereafter, with interest on the unpaid balance, and the residue-in equal instalments of 5, 10, and 15 years, with…

[On the Hth of October, 1839, Abraham Barnes, being indebted in various sums of money, and Melchior B. Mason and John Thompson Mason, being bound with him for a portion of his debts, they conveyed, by deed of that date, a large amount of real and personal estate to William Price and David G. Yost, in trust, out of the proceeds and avails thereof, to discharge the claims of their creditors, without priority or preference, except as the same might exist by law.

This bill was filed on the 11th of September, 1816, by William White Hall, against William Hall and Edward Hall, as the executors of the late Thomas Hall, and against George W. Hall and others, as his children and legatees.

This bill was filed in Harford County Court on the 13th of October, 1826, by Skipwith H. Coale and Eliza Matilda Coale, against Hannah Kitty Chase, in which it is alleged, that the plaintiff, Slcipwilh, had given his bond to the defendant Hannah for the payment of the sum of five hundred dollars, upon certain trusts and conditions, in favour of her daughter the' plaintiff, Eliza ; but that the defendant Hannah, regardless of this their special agreement, had brought suit…

This matter arose on a bill filed, on the 7th of November, 1821, by the Farmers Bank of Maryland, against John J. Gibson and others, the representatives and trustees of the late John Gibson, for the sale of a real estate, which he had mortgaged to the bank to secure the payment of $5325 20, with interest; upon which a decree was passed, on the' 12th of February, 1822, appointing Addison Ridout to make the sale; who reported, that he had made a sale of it, for one-third cash,…

[William Jacob, of the city of Baltimore, being seized and possessed of certain real estate in said city, departed this life on the fifteenth day of July, in the year 1804, leaving his wife Jane Jacob surviving him ; who took possession of said real estate, under the mistaken impression that she had a life estate therein, and continued to hold the same until her death, which occurred on the 19th July, 1837.

It appears, that Marcus Heyland, for the purpose of carrying on the business of a merchant in the city of Baltimore, went to England, and there, in the year 1810, purchased of sundry persons goods to the amount of about $67,000; and, to secure the payment for them, drew bills in favour of those from whom he purchased, on William fy John Bell fy Co. which they accepted; that some time after, William Bell died, and John Bell, by a letter of the 10th November, 1810, informed…

[By the last will and testament .of Samuel Bond, dated 8th July, 1818, Mary Clarissa Bond Barnes, was bequeathed a legacy of $3000, and also one-fourth of his slaves. John Barnes, her father, and surviving executor of the deceased, passed his first and final account on the 14th April, 1830, showing a balance of $38,33816 in his hands for distribution amongst the parties entitled.

[In this case certain land was sold under a decree of the court to satisfy a mortgage debt; and a surplus remaining in court, after its payment in full, petitions were filed by various parties, claiming to be entitled to have their debts paid out of the residue of the fund. The question decided in the case, the facts of which are fully stated by the Chancellor in his opinion, relates to the doctrine of the appropriation of payments :]

[John Coale, of Howard district, having been indebted to Beale Duvall, in the sum of $1187 55, executed to him a bill of sale of certain personal property, dated 27th November, 1824, to secure its payment.

[This case was commenced on the equity side of Baltimore County Court, and removed to this court.

<p>An injunction may be granted in any case, on the bill alone, before a subpoma has issued, on affidavit, or such other testimony as shews the truth of the statements of the bill; except to stay proceedings at law to recover mortgaged property. The mode of giving notice of a motion to dissolve. Exceptions to the answer, and thfe motion to dissolve, may stand for hearing at the same time. The rule further proceedings maybe entered, during the sittings, and at the same time with the entry of notice of motion to dissolve, and may be enforced at the same time ; or at the proper time after the motion to dissolve has been disposed of. On hearing the motion, the plaintiff opens and concludes the argument. In extraordinary cases, the injunction is granted upon terms adapted to the circumstances. It is a general rule, that where there are two or more defendants, no motion to dissolve can be heard until all of them have answered; but to this rule there are exceptions. ■Where one of the defendants has answered, he may have the plaintiff compelled to use all due diligence to enforce an answer from the other defendants, or to have the case placed in such a situation as to enable the responding defendant to move ' for a dissolution of the injunction.</p>

[In February, 1846, Pearson Clark, the complainant, purchased of William Applegarth, a schooner, called the “Emily Ann,” for the sum of $2100, and gave in payment, an old vessel valued at $500, and three drafts in favor of the vendor, drawn by said Clark, and accepted by the firm of Whittington & Snyder for his accommodation.

<p>[EFFECT OF AN INJUNCTION ON PROCEEDINGS at LAW — LIMITATIONS.]</p> <p>The object of an injunction to stay proceedings at law, either before or after judgment, is to prevent the party against whom it issues, from availing himself of an unfair advantage, resulting from accident, mistake, fraud, or otherwise, and which would, therefore, be against conscience.</p> <p>If such unfair advantage has been already obtained, by proceeding to judgment, the court will in like manner control the judgment, and restore the party to his original rights.</p> <p>This can only be done by depriving his adversary of every advantage, which the judgment thus improperly obtained, gives him, and cannot be limited merely, to restraining him from proceeding upon it at law.</p> <p>Hence, an injunction commanding and enjoining the complainant, to cease from all proceedings on his judgment recovered at law, was held to operate to restrain him from proceeding in equity.</p> <p>It is well settled by the Maryland decisions, that chancery will never interfere with judgments at law, where the party’s own default, or neglect, has made an application to the latter tribunal necessary.</p> <p>The running of the act of limitations is suspended by an injunction</p>

<p>[mechanics’ lien.]</p> <p>The law relating to the lien of mechanics and others upon buildings, only prefers such lien te every other lien or incumbrance, which attached upon the building, subsequent to the commencement of the same.</p> <p>If there be liens on the property, prior to the commencement of the building upon which the work is done, or for which the materials are found, the lien for work and materials must be postponed to such prior incumbrance.</p> <p>The act of 1845, ch. 287, sec. 4, gives no right to a party to enforce this lien upon the proceeds of sales of machinery</p> <p>Though a party having a lien on a building for work and materials, may come into a court of law or equity for his share of the proceeds of a sale, made under its authority, no such right is given when such proceeds arise from the sale of machinery.</p>

[In the month of November, 1841, a marriage being at that time in contemplation, between Drusilla Elliott and Lloyd Brown, the latter, for the purpose of securing to the former the undisturbed enjoyment of the property, of which she was then seized and possessed, or to which she might be entitled in expectancy, entered into a contract with her, and the complainants as trustees, not to intermeddle with her property in any manner, but to permit her to appropriate it to her own…

[The late Charles Waters, (lied on the 12th May, 1846, leaving a last will and testament, whereby, after sundry dispositions of a portion of his estate, he devised all the residue thereof, to the complainant, in trust, to hold the income interest, rents and profits, of one-third part of said residue, for the use of his grandson, the defendant, Charles A. Waters, during his life such income, &c., tó be paid to him from time to time, as they might accrue; and after his death,…

' [On the 19th December, 1843, George Williams, of Harford county, applied for the benefit of the insolvent laws of Maryland, and at May term, 1844, of Harford County Court, obtained his final discharge; his son George H. Williams being appointed his permanent trustee.

[On the 22d May, 1830, the late Honorable John Buchanan, of Washington county, being indebted to Casper Mantz, in the sum of ten thousand dollars, in Order to secure its payment, with interest, in two years, executed to him a mortgage of the farm on which he then resided; and his wife united in the acknowledgment of the deed, for the purpose of relinquishing her dower.

This case arose upon a creditor’s bill, filed on the 5th of October, 1825, by George .Maclcubin and Margaret Hall, the widow and executrix of Joseph Hall, deceased, against his devisees, Samuel Matthews, and others ; alleging, that his personal property was insufficient to pay his debts, and praying, that his real estate might be sold for that purpose.

This bill was filed on. the 22d of November, 1821, by Hannah K. Chase, as the widow of the late Samuel Chase, against Samuel Chase, and others, his heirs, and some others, to recover dower in a house and lot in the city of Baltimore, called the Fountain Inn. To which bill all the defendants answered, and testimony was taken.

[This case was argued on exceptions to the Auditor’s report, and on a motion by John H. Key, á conventional trustee, and one of the parties, for an order on the trustee appointed to make sale of the real estate, to bring into court the sum of $3,639 80, a part of the purchase' money received by him.

[William Conn, deceased, by his will dated 14th June, 1821, devised all his property, (consisting of real estate in Baltimore county,) after payment of his debts, &c., to his wife Elizabeth Conn for life; to be divided equally amongst all his children, whom he mentioned by name, in case she should marry before his youngest child, Margaret, arrived at the age of twenty-one years.

[This cause was brought to a hearing, and argued on exceptions to the Auditor’s report, the main point at issue being whether the assignee of a bond given for the purchase money of land conveyed by the vendor to the vendee, can claim the benefit of the equitable lien of the vendor, without any express agreement for the transfer of such lien, to the prejudice of the creditors of the vendee.

[A partition having been decreed between the parties to this cause, (other than Mary Ann Dorsey,) a commission was issued for that purpose, and return made thereon, to which latter various objections have been raised, and their merits argued before the Chancellor. The most prominent objections taken, were: The assignment of the shares to the several parties interested, by the commissioners themselves, without ballot.

[At the October term, 1840, of Anne Arundel County Court, a judgment was rendered in favor of James Dunn and John Sloan, for the use of J. J. Speed and J. Pennington, as trustees and receivers, against one Vachel Sevier, for the sum of $300, with interest thereon, from the 14th December, 1840, the day on which the judgment was signed, and costs; upon this judgment a writ of fieri facias was sued out, and duly returned by the sheriff at April term, 1841, as partially…

This bill was filed on the 29th of November, 1821, by Janet Lingan, William B. Randolph and Sarah his wife, George Lingan, and Elias B. Caldwell and Jinne his wife, against Richard Henderson, Sarah Henderson, Janet L. Henderson, and David English and Lydia his wife.

<p>[The facts of this case will appear from the Chancellor’s opinion :]</p>

[The complainant filed his bill in this court, on the 9th of October, 1847, stating that his mother was in her lifetime seized and possessed of a tract of land in Anne Arundel county, containing about sixty-nine acres, upon which he (complainant) has resided for the last four years ; and that his father, by his will, had devised the same to him in fee, under the erroneous impression that he was the fee-simple owner thereof, and had a right to devise it away.

[On the 4th June, 1838, a previous inquisition having been set aside by Alleghany County Court, a new jury met and proceeded to condemn the lands of the complainants, for the use of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, one of the defendants in this cause. By their inquisition, which was affirmed by the court of said county, on the 8th of October following, the sum of $13,256 was awarded to the complainants, as damages for the lands so condemned.

[Edward Green, the trustee, under a deed from True Putney and Hugh Riddle, dated 29th of August,' 1839, conveying to him a large amount of property, real and personal; also, transferring to him all debts and claims due them as partners, and evidences of debt of every description in trust for the benefit of creditors, filed his petition in November, 1841, on the equity side of Baltimore County Court, stating his receipt of a portion of the trust fund, and praying leave to…

[This was a creditor’s suit, and the Auditor’s report, with the statement of claims, having been set down for hearing on exceptions, the demand for full proof, and the plea of limitations, an order was passed sustaining the plea of limitations as to some claims, and settling other points, and referring the case again to the Auditor, to state an account from which were to be rejected all claims not then (the time of the audit) fully-proved, and in which the plea of…

[The bill was filed in this cause ion the 8th of September, 1846.

[On the 2d of May, 1848, certain real estate in the city of Baltimore, belonging to the defendant, was sold under a chancery decree to satisfy a mortgage debt of the complainant. The defendant, who was a German, and imperfectly acquainted with the English language, applied to the trustee, shortly before the sale, to know on what day the property was to be sold.

This bill was filed in Baltimore County Court, on the 7th of June, 1818, by John W. Ogden and wife, to recover of the representatives of their late uncle Amos Ogden, a marriage portion, which the bill alleges, he had promised to give her. After the answers had come in, and testimony had been collected, under a commission issued from that tribunal, the case was removed to this court under the act of 1824, ch. 196, and the proceedings filed here on the 15th of May, 1826.

[The two questions presented to the court in this case, (the facts of which will appear from the Chancellor’s opinion,) were, firstly, into what proportions was to be divided the income of certain trust property, devised, to two for life, and after the death of one of them, for the mutual benefit of the other, and her children ; remainder to the said children in fee.

[The question involved in this case, relates to the construction of the will of James Elliott, deceased, who died in 1809, and is brought before the court by exceptions to the'Auditor’s, report; the nature of the case being sufficiently explained by the Chancellor’s statement of the facts, and his comments thereon:]

This bill was filed, on the 3d of September, 1819, in Baltimore County Court, by Rebecca Owings and John Cromwell and Urath his wife, against William Owings, to recover an annual sum of money given to Rebecca, by the will of her father. After the defendant had answ’ered, and testimony had been taken, the case was removed to this court, under the act of 1824, ch. 196; and the papers were filed here, on the 9th of February, 1827.

<p>[jurisdiction.]</p> <p>The Court of Chancery has no authority oyer a trustee acting under the decree of a court of concurrent jurisdiction. If such an authority were exercised by the co-ordinate equity tribunals of the state, the utmost confusion and clashing of power would ensue.</p>

[Joseph G. Harrison, deceased, by his will, dated 2d November, 1844, devised to his wife, Matilda B. Harrison, eighty acres of land; and devised, that his executor should sell the rest of his real estate, and pay to his wife one-third of the balance of the proceeds which might remain after the payment of his debts.

It appears that James Cunningham, as assignee of two common warrants, on the 31st of October, 1826, placed them in the hands of the surveyor of Allegany county for execution; who on that day, in pursuance of the rules and orders established by the governor and council, noted down in his book' the receipt of them, and. designated the. place at which Cunningham desired to have them located, in these words : “ I hereby locate the within warrants for James Cunningham at a large…

<p>‘[VACATING SETTLEMENT — PARTIES TO SUIT — SURCHARGING AND FALSIFYING ACCOUNTS — ACT OF 1845, CH. 367 — APPEAL.]</p> <p>Trustees under a deed, one of the trusts of which was, that after satisfying the purposes of the deed, viz. the payment of the debts of the grantor, the residue of the property should be held for the use of the grantor, were also appointed his trustees under the insolvent laws; and, acting in this double capacity, transferred certain stocks belonging to the grantor (the complainant) to the defendant. All his debts having been paid, and the trustees directed by a decree of this court to convey to him all the property they had not disposed of in performance of their duty as trustees in insolvency: it was Held—</p> <p>That the complainant was entitled to maintain a bill for the recovery of the stock from the defendant, upon the ground, that the transfer had been improperly obtained; and, that the trustees were not necessary parties to such suit.</p> <p>Where an agreement was made to settle a claim presented to the complainant, in the form of a stated account, which, without examination, was assumed to be correct, the complainant will be allowed to surcharge and falsify such account, to the extent of the errors specified in his bill, independently of the question of fraud, actual or constructive.</p> <p>The court is to take the account, as stated, and the orms p-obandi is upon the party having liberty to surcharge and falsify ; and he will he restricted to proof of errors specified in his bill.</p> <p>When the accounts upon which the settlement was based, were presented to the complainant, he was deprived of much of his mental capacity, and incapable of giving them that examination which was indispensable to their full comprehension. Held—</p> <p>That under these circumstances, it was the duty of the court, if errors were pointed out, to permit the plaintiff to surcharge and falsify the accounts, though the settlement based upon them was regarded as a family settlement, which the court will usually uphold with a strong hand.</p> <p>A party having elected to examine witnesses upon their voir dire, is precluded from resorting to any other mode to show their interest in the event of the suit.</p> <p>An appeal and a bond to prosecute the appeal, will not, under the act of 1845, ch. 367, independently of the direction of the court, delay the execution of the order appealed from.</p> <p>- Whether such direction shall or shall not be given, is referred by the legislature to the sound discretion of the court, upon a view of all the circumstances of the case.</p>

<p>[In this case a decree passed, by consent, on the 5th of July, 1848, for the sale of certain mortgaged premises, unless the defendants should, on or before the 15th of the same month, pay or cause to be paid, to the complainant, its mortgage debt, amounting to eight hundred and fifty dollars, with interest thereon from the 27th of January, 1847, and the costs of this cause. A trustee was appointed for the purpose of making such sale, and qualified by giving the required bond.</p> <p>He then proceeded to advertise the property, after the expiration of the time limited for the payment of the debt; but before the day of sale, on the 8th of August, 1848, the defendants entered an appeal from the decree, and filed an appeal bond, which was approved by the register of the court, as authorized by the act of 1826, ch. 200, sec. 5 ; and, it appears, by the report of the trustee, that there was exhibited to him, on the day of sale, but before the sale took place, a certificate from the register of the fact of such appeal having been entered, find of the filing and approvement of the bond.</p> <p>The trustee, however, acting under the impression that no appeal would lie from a decree, by consent, proceeded to make the sale ; and having reported it, and exceptions having been filed by the defendants to its ratification, upon the ground, that the appeal and bond superseded the decree, the question was submitted to the court upon the notes of the solicitors.</p> <p>Upon these exceptions the Chancellor says:]</p>

[Alexander B. Harrison, trustee under a decree in chancery, in a creditor’s suit, to sell the real estate of John Merchant, deceased, made sale thereof at auction, in St. Michaels, Talbot county,'on the 2d of May, 1829, in different parcels, and received the purchase money therefor, but died without having made a report to the Chancellor. The sale, as appeared by the evidence, was well attended, and the prices bid, fair and reasonable.

This bill was filed on the 30th of December, 1818, by Samuel Chase against Christian L. Manhardt, and others ; in which it is alleged, that the defendant Manhardt had obtáined a judgment against James Bryden for a large sum of money, upon which he had sued out an attachment, and h'ad it laid in the hands of this plaintiff Chase, as garnishee of the defendant Bryden ; upon which attachment Manhardt had, by surprise and fraud, obtained a judgment of condemnation against the…

[This case was removed from the equity side of Baltimore County Court.

[On the 3d of January, 1849, a petition was filed in this cause, by Robert Franklin, against the widow and children of Benjamin Franklin, deceased, stating, that on the 25th of July, 1839, a decree was passed therein for the partition of the real estate of Robert Franklin, deceased, in Anne Arundel county, wherein lot No. 1 was assigned to Benjamin Franklin, the defendant, and lot No. 3 to the petitioner, and said Benjamin was directed to pay to the petitioner for owelty of…

[The object of this bill, which was filed by Harriet A. Beard, administratrix of John Beard, deceased, was the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land, alleged to have been entered into between the deceased husband of the complainant, and John H. Linthicum; and also a writ of ne exeat against the said Linthicum.

[On the 28th of March, 1844, John Delaplaine, of Carroll county, executed to Wm. P. Maulsby, a deed of trust of all his property for the benefit, firstly of certain of his creditors therein mentioned, and after the payment of their claims, for the benefit of all other persons having any demands against him.

This bill was filed on the 2d of September, 1826, by Fayette Gibson against James Tilton, in which it is alleged, that owing to various circumstances, the defendant Tilton had recovered a judgment at law against the plaintiff Gibson, for a large sum of money which he had discovered was really and in equity not due to him.

[The principal question presented by this case, the facts of which will sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Chancellor, was, whether certain negroes, manumitted by will since the act of 1831, chap. 281, and consequently incapable of residing within the state, were entitled to a devise of certain real estate, made to them by the same will:]

This bill was filed on the 16th of June, 1823, by Clement Dorsey against James Campbell and John Ritchie, to enforce the specific performance of an agreement. Held: and were ready to re-assign to the plaintiff. After which the parties, by agreement, admitted sundry facts and some exhibits which had been previously filed; and the case was brought before the court for final hearing.

[James-West, deceased, in the year 1805, conveyed his propertydo trustees for the benefit of his creditors, and was himself appointed by the-trustees their agent for managing the trust. On the death of West, in 1809, Nathaniel Williams was made agent in his place,' and afterwards on the death of the trustees, he was appointed trustee, and has continued to act in that capacity ever since.

[The object of this bill was to obtain a decree against the . defendant, Charlotte C. D. Owings for the specific performance of an alleged contract to sell certain land; and an injunction against the other defendant, Green, to restrain him from interfering with the complainants in their occupancy and enjoyment thereof.

George Howard and Benjamin C. Howard, the sons and executors of John Eager Howard, deceased, by their petition, filed on the 16th of November, 1827, stated, that their father had, by his last will, made on the 9th of October, 1827, devised his real estate to be divided among his descendants, as therein set forth; that they had made some progress in the payment of the debts of the deceased; and that although they had not fully satisfied all his creditors, yet as from the…

This case was brought before the court by a bill filed by Colegate D. Owings against Charlotte C. D. Owings, on the 21st May, 1825, in which the plaintiiF alleged, that she was then more than eighty-four years of age, and at a time when she was in a condition of extreme ill health, and altogether deprived of the proper use of her mental faculties, the defendant had fraudulently caused her to execute and deliver a deed dated on the 15th of June 1824, which purports to be a…

[By the written agreement between these parties, dated the 11th of October, 1845, the plaintiff leased to the defendant, for the term of seven years, the furnace erected on the property of the plaintiff, known as the Lonaconing Furnace, together with certain rights and privileges therein enumerated.

[This case originated on the petition of Richard R. Pue, the next friend of Matilda R. H. Pue, and Henry H. Pue, infants; stating that Philip Hammond, deceased, by his last will and testament, devised to his daughter Harriet, a tract of land in Anne Arundel county in fee simple, upon which she entered after his death; that she subsequently intermarried with Henry H. Pue, by whom she had two children, the said Matilda and Henry, and died in the year 1814 — leaving her husband…

[This bill was filed by the complainants, Rachel Mousley, widow of Richard Simpers, his infant children, and heirs at law, and John Mousley, the present husband of Rachel, to obtain an injunction, and the specific performance of a contract alleged to have been made (in writing it was believed) between Edward Wilson, the defendant, and the said Richard Simpers, deceased.

[The bill in this ease, alleged, that on the 20th August, 1846, the complainants executed to the defendants, a deed of certain property, lying partly in Howard district, and partly in Baltimore county, for the sum of $25,000; that the defendants had taken possession thereof, and-peaceably occupied the same ever since; that, although a formal acknowledgment of the receipt of the purchase money was written on the deed, it had never in fact been ■ paid ; and that, the…

[Waller Smith, deceased, of Prince George’s county, by his will, devised certain lands to his widow, and to his son Walter, and gave them the privilege of editing from his lands in Anne Arundel county, devised to his four unmarried daughters, “so much wood and timber as might be necessary for the support of the lands” devised to his said widow and son.

<p>[bona fide purchaser of stock — trustee’s right to TRANSFER — EXECUTED CONTRACT OF A CORPORATION FORBIDDEN BY ITS CHARTER — LIABILITY OF A CORPORATION ON TRANSFERS OF ITS STOCKS.']</p> <p>A bona fide purchaser of stock in a bank or other corporation, standing in the name of trustees, without notice of the trust, will be protected, whether the trustees have the legal authority to make the transfer or not.</p> <p>If there be no fraud or collusion, the bank and not the transferee must abide the loss, if a loss be sustained by any act of the proper officer of the bank in the transfer of its stock, arising either from a misconception of his duty or a want of judgment.</p> <p>The mere addition of the word “trustee” to the name of the person who appears on the books of a corporation as the stockholder, with nothing to indicate the character of the trust, or the party beneficially interested, will not deprive him of the legal capacity to transfer the stock, though by so doing, he may commit a breach of trust.</p> <p>( A corporation may avail itself of its want of authority to make the contract f sought to be enforced against it, though it has received and enjoyed the consideration upon which it was made.</p> <p>But, where a contract of a corporation has been executed by the parties to it, it is not competent for a mere stranger to the contract to assail it, and deprive the corporation of the advantage derived from it, upon the ground, that it was interdicted by the charter.</p> <p>Where the entry on the transfer book of a bank displayed the origin, nature and character of the trust, and who were the beneficiaries, it was Held— that the bank had notice of the trusts with which the stock was clothed, and would be responsible, if it permitted a transfer to be made by other persons than the trustees, who alone were authorized to make it.</p> <p>In such case, if the trustees themselves should offer to transfer, under circumstances calculated so excite suspicion that they were about to abuse their trust, the bank would be bound to institute the necessary inquiry ; and if it omitted to do so, and loss resulted, the loss would be thrown upon it.</p> <p>Where a party transfers stock as “erectitor,” the bank must know that there is ' a will of which, in Maryland, it is bound to take notice.</p> <p>But, where the entry upon the books of a corporation only showed that the stock stood in the names of certain persons, as trustees, without showing who were the cetuis que trusts, or what the nature of the trust was, it was Held — that this entry standing by itself, was not sufficient to put the corporation upon the inquiry, and to make it responsible, on the grouud of negligence.</p>

It appears, that William Hammond of Ann Arundel county, by his will and codicil, made on the 24th March 1807, after devising several parcels of his land to particular persons, and 'emancipating some of his negroes, directed, that all the residue of his real estate should be sold by his executors for the payment of his debts; and the surplus of the proceeds to be invested and applied in satisfaction of legacies, as therein specified among the children of his sisters ; and he…

By this bill, filed on the 3d of April, 1826, it is stated, that the plaintiff Charles A. Williamson, and the defendants John B. Wilson and John JY.

[On the 15th of January, 1830, Ann B. W. Hayes, who has since intermarried with Joseph Goodburn, filed her bill in this court, stating, that on the [9th of December, 1824, she intermarried with… Held: or be continued under the control of this court in this suit.

This was a creditors' bill, filed on the 14th of February 1827, by Hiram Jones and Elizabeth Jones, against Martha Jinn Jones and Emetine Jones, infant heirs of the late Jesse Jones, Richard Spencer jun’r, and Edward Brown.

<p>[border op promissory botes — usury.]</p> <p>A bona fide holder of a negotiable instrument for a valuable consideration, without notice of facts which effect its validity as between antecedent parties, if he takes it by indorsement before it becomes due, acquires a valid title, and may recover upon it, though, as between the antecedent parties, the transaction may be invalid.</p> <p>The holder of such paper before it is due, is not bound to prove that he is a bona fide holder for a valuable consideration without notice ; for the law will presume this, in the absence of rebutting proof.</p> <p>If the want, or failure, or illegality of the consideration has been established, ’ or if it be shown that the note was lost, or stolen, before it came into the possession of the holder, it is then incumbent on him to show that he has f given value for it.</p> <p>Since the act of 1845, ch. 352, usurious instruments are not, under any circumstances, avoided, but are made valid securities in all courts, no matter by whom proceedings may be instituted upon them, to the extent of the principal sum, and six per cent, interest.</p>

[The bill in this case alleges, that the late Robert W. Bowie, the husband of the complainant, on the 1st of September, 1832, and during the coverture, purchased a tract of land called “Brookfield,” and took a bond of conveyance therefor, with condition to convey the legal title upon the payment of the purchase money; and that, subsequently, on the 25th of November, 1843, the legal title, in fee, was conveyed to. him, and the bond and deed are filed as exhibits with the bill.

<p>[CHANCERV PRACTICE — VACATING ENROLLED DECREE — BILL OP REVIEW.]</p> <p>A decree is considered, as enrolled, when signed by the Chancellor, filed by the Register, and the term elapsed at which it was made ; and such decree cannot be reheard upon petition.</p> <p>Every decree stands, and must be allowed to stand, for what it purports to be on its face, until it has been revised, or reversed, in a proper and solemn manner.</p> <p>A decree passed for the sale of property, for the purpose of partition among the parties to; the cause. After enrollment of" this decree, a petition was filed by one of the parties, setting up an exclusive right to the whole proceeds of sale. Held—</p> <p>That as the decree contained no reservation of equities, or for further directions, it was of course final upon the rights of the parties, and that this court upon such petition, had no more power to change the rights thus settled, than it would have to open the enrollment, and vacate the decree.</p> <p>When a decree is obtained and enrolled, though on a bill taken pro confesso, it cannot be reheard on petition, and the remedy of the party grieved, is by a bill to set aside the decree for fraud, or a bill of review, which only lies against those who were parties to the original bill.</p> <p>A bill of review founded on new matter discovered since the decree, cannot be filed without leave, and the granting this leave, is left to the sound discretion of the court, arising out of the circumstances of each case.</p> <p>The limitation of time, as to appeals from the decrees of the court, applies to the right of filing bills of review, and such a bill, filed nine months after the date of the decree, comes too late.</p>

<p>[JUDGMENT — LIEN OP.]</p> <p>A judgment rendered in any one of the county courts in this state is not a lien upon lands lying in another county, until the plaintiff, in the mode pointed out by the acts of 1794, ch. 54, and 1795, ch. 24, has transferred his judgment to such other county.</p> <p>Judgments, when liens at all, are general liens upon-all the lands of the defendant, continuing for twelve years, and fasten as well upon those lands which the defendant held at the time of their rendition, as upon 'those subsequently acquired.</p>

This was a creditors’ bill filed on the 13th of December, 1826, by John W. Dorsey against Rezin Hammond, the executor, and Denton Hammond, Matthias Hammond, and Caroline B. Hammond, infants and devisees of the late Matthias Hammond.

[Sometime in the year 18 — , Basil Jefferson, of Calvert County, since deceased, purchased certain land in that county, of one Tubman K. Long, and died before it was entirely paid for, leaving a daughter, Ann Jefferson, (who afterwards intermarried with the complainant Boyd, and died without issue,) his heiress at law.

<p>[The facts of this case will appear from the Chancellor’s opinion»]</p>

This bill was filed, on the 20th of April, 1827, by Martin Fen-wick and Francis Bird, against William Laughlin and Jonathan Hawkins, to foreclose a mortgage of real estate given by the late Jonathan JF. Laughlin, the ancestor of the defendants, to the plaintiffs. The defendants put in their answers, admitting the facts as stated in the bill; upon which, on the 22d of May, 1827, it was decreed, that the mortgaged property be sold.

This bill was filed on the 31st of January 1827, by 'John Fornshill and Ann his wife, Alexander M. Williams and Sarah his wife, Andrew Fulton, and William Fulton an infant .by Andrew his next friend, against William V. Murray surviving administrator de bonis non of Henry Somervell, and William, Hubbard administrator of Thomas Somervell.

[The complainant in this case, who was a feme covert, and sued by her next friend, was, in her own right, seized and possessed in fee, at the time of her marriage, of a parcel of land containing about one hundred acres, and worth about $1700.

[Fielder B. Smith, late of Calvert county, being possessed of valuable real estate in said county, departed this life in the year 1845, leaving a widow, Lucy M. Smith, (the present defendant,) and several children and the representatives of other children, his heirs at law; five of them being children of the defendant, and the other descendants of the deceased by a former marriage.

This bill was filed on the 21st of December 1827, by Rezin Estep, against Rachel H. Watkins, Benjamin Watkins, and John Claytor, It is stated in the bill, that Charles D. Hodges, being seized of certain parcels of land, by his- bond with a collateral condition, contracted, in consideration of the sum of $3,000 to convey them to this plaintiff, who to secure the payment of that amount as the purchase money, gave his bond to Hodges, who assigned it to Benjamin Hodges, who…

[The original and amended bills in this case, were filed by certain of the creditors of the firm of Diffenderfer and Brothers, against the members of said firm, and Sampson Cariss and Catharine S. Diffenderfer, stating that the defendant first named had commenced business in the city of Baltimore about the year 1846, and by falsely representing the extent of their means, had obtained credit with the several complainants and others, to a large amount; that about the month of…

This bill was filed on the 29th of November 1825, by Joseph Moreton, administrator de bonis non of John Westeneys, and James I. Pattison administrator de bonis non of James Pattison, against Walter Harrison.

[The bill was filed in tbis case on the 3d of October, 1848, to vacate a sale of negroes made by the administrator of James Mitchell, deceased, to the complainant, on or about the 1st of May in that year.

This bill was filed on the 15th June 1822, by Benjamin Hodges against Thomas Harwood of Ben. and Benjamin Mullikin; and it alleges, that the defendant Harwood had, by a deed bearing date on the 7th of April 1810, conveyed certain real and personal estate to the defendant Mullikin and Benjamin Harwood, who is since dead, and to the survivor of them, in trust for the purposes therein mentioned; and that afterwards, on the 13th of March 1817, the defendant Harwood mortgaged the…

[The object of the bill in this case, which was filed on the 5th of March, 1846, was to vacate two conveyances made by William C. Spindler to James Phillips, senr., upon the ground that they were executed to delay, hinder and defraud the creditors of the said Spindler.

This bill was filed on the 25th of January 1828, in Baltimore County Court, by Isaac Phillips jun’r. and William, Shipley jun’r. against Richard A. Shipley, to have an account of a joint concerp, in which they had been engaged, in building certain houses in the city of Baltimore; and for relief, &c. On the same day, and without any answer having been put in by the defendant, it was, by consent, ordered, that the matter in dispute be referred to the arbitrament of Daniel…

[By articles of agreement, executed on the seventh day of February, eighteen hundred and thirty-five, Philip and Thomas Baltzell, and William B. Trump, entered into copartnership, under the name and firm of William B. Trump & Co., to commence on the ninth of the same month and continue for the term of three years.

This bill was filed on the 30th of September 1828, by James Iglehart, Robert S. Bryan, and William McParlan, against Benjamin Armiger, Richard G. Hutton, Richard D. Hill, Rezin Estep, John S. Selby, and JVicholas I. WatJdns.

[This suit originated in the filing of a creditor’s bill on the equity side of Charles County Court, on the 12th of November, 1840, against Maria C. Brawner, executrix, and the heirs and devisees of Henry Brawner, deceased, and was subsequently transferred to this court, under the Act of Assembly in relation to such cases depending in the county courts, constituting the First Judicial District.

This was a creditors’ bill filed on the 17th of November 1824, by John Murphy against Henrietta M. Dallam, William M. Dallam and others, the widow, executors and devisees of Josias W Dallam deceased; upon which a decree was passed on the 8th of February 1826, and the real estate of the deceased was sold accordingly.

This bill was filed on the 29th of January 1827, by Samuel Watkins, Augustus Watkins, Charles Watkins, Ann Watkins, Jane Watkins, find Eliza Watkins, infants, by Benjamin Watkins their next friefid, against Thomas J. Dorsett. The bill states, that Samuel ifr.

[The testator, Henry Keerl, by his will, which was proved in July, 1827, devised and bequeathed to his friend, Charles Bohn, (who renounced the trust,) and his son, George H. Keerl, portions of his real and personal estate, to be held by them in trust for his daughter, Amelia H. Keerl, during her life, free from the control of any future husband, and after her death, in trust for any child or children she might have; with the further direction and declaration, “that the…

This bill was filed on the 12th of September 1827, by Ephraim Etchison, Odie Wheeler and Caroline his wife, Mortimer Dorsey, Richard Dorsey, Melson Morris and Eliza his wife, John Dorsey, Caleb Dorsey, and John Hood and Louisa his wife, against Mary Dorsey, Aphsah Dorsey, Hanson Dorsey, Henry Dorsey, and Septimus Dorsey, all of whom were infants.

[On the 20th day of November, 1845, George Suter, of the city of Baltimore, being indebted to the Westminster Bank in the sum of six thousand dollars, agreed with that institution, through its cashier and agent,'John Fisher, that, in consideration of the advance of three thousand dollars, in addition to the sum already due by him, he, the said Suter, would confess judgment for the whole sum of nine thousand dollars, and also by way of security for the repayment of the said…

<p>This bill was filed on the 4th of December 181-2, by Benjamin H. Mullildn, Richard D. Mullildn, Basil JD. Mullildn, Jacob Fl Waters, Basil Duckett and Sophia his wife, Margaret Mullikin, Ann Mullikin, and Kitty Mullikin, against Regnal Mullildn, Baruch Mullildn, John Waters, Ann Maria Waters, and Rachel Waters, all of whom were minors. The bill states, that Belt Mullikin had died intestate seized of a large real estate which had descended to his children the plaintiffs Benjamin, Richard, Basil D. Mullikin, Sophia, Margaret, Ami, and Kitty, who were of full age, and to his children the infant defendants Regnal and Baruch; and to his grand-children, the infant defendants, John, Ann Maria, and Rachel, who were the children of the intestate’s late daughter Martha H. Waters who had been the wife of the plaintiff Jacob F* Waters ; that it would be for the benefit of all the representatives of the intestate to have the land sold, in order to make division of the proceeds thereof; but that a sale could not be effected without the interposition of this court. Whereupon the plaintiffs prayed, that a sale might be made; and that they might have such other relief as the nature of their case might require.</p> <p>The defendants Regnal and Baruch having attained their full age, since the filing of the bill, put in their answer on the 6th of January 1817, and consented to a sale as prayed. And the other defendants, who were still under age, answered by guardian and admitted, that a sale should be made as prayed.</p> <p>Upon which on the 8th of January 1817 a decree was passed in the usual form, appointing Jonathan Meredith trustee to make the sale; who, with his own consent, was on the 10th of March following removed, and Basil D. Mullildn appointed in his stead. After which this trustee, having given bond with Baruch Mullikin and Regnal Mullildn as his sureties, on the 4th of April 1821 filed his report, in which he states, that he had on the 5th of December 1817 sold a part of the estate to Benjamin H. Mullikin for the sum of $5163 75; that on the 19th of October 1819 he had sold the residue of the estate to Edward E. Anderson, for the sum of $3000 ; that he had received a payment of $1798 71 from the purchaser Benjamin H. Mullikin, and held his notes for the balance; and that he had received in payment from the purchaser Anderson the sum of $1060; and held his notes for the balance. These reported sales were finally ratified on the 14th of February 1825, and on the same day the auditor reported a distribution of the proceeds among those heirs of the late Belt Mullikin; which was confirmed by an order passed on the next day, and the trustee directed to apply the proceeds accordingly.</p> <p>On the 12th of September 1827 the heiress Kitty, who had married Joseph Howard, with her husband filed a petition, allegiñg, that the trustee Basil D. Mullikin had received the whole or the greater part of the purchase money, and had not paid the petitioner Kitty or her husband the share awarded to her; whereupon they prayed, that the trustee might be ordered to report his proceedings and to bring into court the proceeds of the sale made by him. Upon which he was ordered to report or shew cause; and accordingly on the 26th of February 1828 he filed his report or answer, loosely stating the sums he had received and paid away, and that the securities taken from the purchasers had been deposited with his surety Baruch Mullikin, and further that he had applied for the benefit of the insolvent laws. To the sufficiency of this answer the petitioners filed their exceptions on the 29lh of February 1828, in which they also pray, that Baruch Mullikin may be required to bring those securities into court; that the trustee be directed to bring in the money received by him ; and that he be displaced.</p> <p>On the same 29th of February the heiress Rachel with Thomas I. Hall her husband, and Harriet Waters as assignee of the heir John Waters, filed their petition, in which they state, that the share awarded to Rachel and John had not been paid by the trustee; and pray, that they may be admitted as parties along with Howard and wife; which was ordered accordingly. -</p>

[In this case, a bill was filed by the complainants on the 13th of October, 1846, alleging the indebtedness of the Steam Packet Company to various individuals in large sums of money, and its inability to pay such debts, and praying that a receiver might be appointed to take charge of and sell the vessels and other property of the company, and for an injunction to restrain the defendants (trustees to whom the vessels of the company had been assigned) from navigating said…

This bill was filed on the 2d of March 1824, by Richard Allen against Micajah Burke and Ann his wife, and William Comegys, to foreclose certain mortgages which had been given by the defendant Ann, while sole, to the plaintiff on a certain parcel of ground and its rents and profits, of which she held the remainder in fee simple, after the expiration of a lease for years held by the defendant Comegys.

This bill was filed on the 3d of July 1820, by Samuel G. Griffith against John W. Bronaugh, to obtain an injunction to stay proceedings at law on a judgment recovered by the defendant, Bronaugh, against the plaintiff, Griffith. The injunction was granted as prayed.

This bill was filed on the 28th of February 1829, by Thomas Snowden jun’r, John Contee and Ann Louisa his wife, Albert Fair-fax and Caroline E. his wife, Timothy P. Andrews and Emily R. his wife, against Richard JT. Snowden.

This-bill was filed on the 10th of December '1827, by Lewis Mayer and Isaac Lohman, of the city of Philadelphia, partners trading under the firm of Mayer Lohman, against Thomas Tyson, Richard H. Douglas, Christian Keller,- Isaac Tyson jun’r, Nathan Tyson, Benjamin P. Moore, John Glenn, and Joaquim de Mier.

It appears tbat the late William Billingslea, on the 9th March 1821, filed his bill here praying for an injunction to stay proceedings at law instituted against him by Jarvis Gilbert; and in the same month Billingslea filed a supplemental bill against Gilbert, in like manner praying for an injunction. ,

<p>The distinction between waste and trespass as regards the proceeding by injunction. The preventive and corrective common law remedy for vVaste. The writ of estrcpement to prevent waste associated with an action to try the right.</p> <p>An injunction to stay waste may be granted in a variety of cases in which an action of waste will not lie. And the court will, in many cases, exercise a conservative power over properly, because of there being no mode of obtaining adequate relief at law.</p> <p>In England, if the injunction bill states and admits, that the defendant asserts and relies upon what he alleges to be a valid adverse title in himself, the plaintiff thereby states himself out of court; or if the defendant in his answer positively denies the plaintiff’s title, the injunction will be refused, or, having been granted, will, on the coming in of such an answer, be dissolved.</p> <p>But in Maryland, if the plaintiff, by his bill for an injunction, can and does put the title in issue here; or, if he states, that he has actually brought an action at law to try the right, he may have an injunction to stay waste, pending the suit here, or the action at law; and, such injunction will not be. dissolved on the coming in of an answer which denies the plaintiff’s right. If however, after he has filed such a bill here to try the right, he wishes to obtain an injunction to stay waste, he should apply for it by petition in the same case, and not by a separate bill.</p> <p>An injunction to stay waste, pending a suit, does not restrain the defendant from cultivating, or malting any of the ordinary uses of tire land.</p> <p>A conveyance, shewn to be fraudulent, declared to be void as against creditors.</p> <p>The title to land sold under a fieri facias .passes by the sale ; but there must be some written, and recorded evidence of tire sale; such as a return to the execution under which the sale was made.</p> <p>Where lands have been sold under a fieri facias, the sheriff should, in his return, sufficiently describe the land sold by him.</p>

This bill was filed on the 14th of December 1826, by Morgan Hill against Daniel Bowie. It states that the plaintiff was in possession of a part of a tract of land called Go-ammar^s Chance., to which he had a good title in fee simple; that the defendant had committed waste upon it by cutting down timber trees; and that he, this plaintiff, had brought an action of quare clausum fregit against the defendant to try the title to the land; which action was then depending.

This was a controversy which originated between the House of Delegates and the Senate, at the December session 1824, of the General Assembly of Maryland, respecting the salary of the Chancellor.