Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

23 Md. 201

Hooper v. Logan

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided June 14, 1865

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1865-06-14

The original bill in this cause, was filed in the Chancery Court on the 3rd of June 1851, by the appellants, assignees* and grantees of the original vendors of certain real estate? against the vendee, for a sale of said real estate for the payment of the balance of the purchase money.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1865-06-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1962

1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

1018651870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Goldsborough, J.,

¶1after stating the case, (ante pp. 202 and 203,) delivered the opinion of this Court, as follows:

¶2The only material question for us. to decide is, did the vendor’s lien pass to the appellants by the assignment of the articles of agreement and the deed aforesaid ? In our opinion, these instruments operated to- pass the vendor’s-lien.

¶3The appellants holding the entire title, both by the deed and by the assignment of the articles of agreement, Logan could obtain the title only from them by a bill for a specific performance, alleging therein the payment to them of the 'balance of the purchase money. This case is clearly distinguishable from those cited by the appellee and by the *210Judge of the Circuit Court, iu his opinion. In those cases the evidence of indebtedness, was alone assigned, and without recourse.

(Decided June 14th, 1865.)

¶4In the case of Willis vs. Bryan, lately decided by this Court, the distinction is taken, that the note stated oh its face that it was for the purchase money, and where Willis had not only recourse to the assignor by the express guarantee, but was demanding the claim for the benefit of the vendor, the vendee having become an insolvent debtor.

¶5It is contended’by the appellee that “the appellants have been*guilty of gross laches, as the assignment was made to them on the 14th of October 1843, and their original bill was not filed until the 3rd of June 1851, nearly eight years after.”

¶6This objection cannot avail any thing in favor of the ap-pellee. No plea of limitations was intervened, and no rights or claims of third parties have come in conflict with the claim of the appellants; and the appellee has had possession’ of the property since his contract of purchase, without paying the purchase money.

¶7We are of opinion that the appellants are entitled to the relief sought by their bill of complaint, and we will sign a decree reversing the decree of the Circuit Court with costs to the appellants, and remanding the cause for further proceedings, in conformity with our opinion.

¶8Decree reversed a/nd came remanded.

/23/md/201 · .json · Public domain