Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 Md. 1

Parsons v. Hughes

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided June 2, 1858

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1858-06-02

The bill in this case, filed on the 9th of March 1857, by the appellee against the appellant, alleges, that the complainant became surety of Parsons, and on the 8th of October 1855, united with him in confessing a judgment in favor of the parties to whom the debt was due, to be released on payment of $245 in six months, and of $244.85 in twelve months, with interest on each sum from the date of the judgment; that on the 14th of January 1856, Parsons executed to the…

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1921

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1858-06-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Tuck, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of this court.

¶2This is an appeal from an order granting an injunction, and must be determined on the bill, without reference to the answer. McCann vs. Taylor, 10 Md. Rep., 429.

¶3Upon carefully considering the averments of the bill, which on this hearing must be taken as true, we are of opinion that the order was properly granted. It is unnecessary to multiply authorities on the question of the court’s power to interfere by injunction to prevent waste or destruction of property covered by mortgages. It has been frequently exercised, and was recognized in Clagett vs. Salmon, 5 G. & J., 314, where the bill was filed before the mortgagee was entitled to proceed to recover the debt. The same principle applies after default made by the debtor, for the mortgagee is not bound to take possession of the property by process at law. He may elect to prosecute his remedy in equity, and the debtor ought not to complain of being restrained from impairing the security which is held by his creditor. The subject was before the late chan*6cellor, in a case where real and personal property were both conveyed by mortgage, and the debtor was selling and misapplying the personalty. Brown vs. Stewart, 1 Md. Ch. Dec., 87. Concurring in the views there expressed, we are willing to rest our affirmance of the present order on the chancellor’s opinion.

(Decided June 2nd, 1858.)

¶4Order affirmed and cause reminded.

/12/md/1 · .json · Public domain