Volume 3 — Maryland Reports

The appellant, Susan Wiles, anterior to and at the time of her marriage with the appellee, Tilghman B. Wiles, was the owner of a promissory note, executed to her in her then maiden name of Susan Baker, by the appellee, Christian Ramsburg, to the. amount of $958, of which $100 principal and,all the interest, up to- the 26th of November 1849, had been paid.

THIS was a scire facias on a judgment obtained by the intestate, in May, 1786. The scire facias, suggesting the death of the said Lower, stated that administration had been committed to the plaintiff by the “ commissary of the county of Montgomery, officially and lawfully constituted,” &c.

THIS was an ejectment for a tract of land called Shield’s Purchase, removed from Baltimore county court by a writ of error. By the record it appears that, at August, 1786, a verdict was found for the plaintiff, and judgment for possession. But because it was unknown to the court what damages the plaintiff had sustained, a writ of inquiry of damages was ordered, which was executed and returned March, 1787, awarding damages to the plaintiff 125/. current money.

On the 4th of January 1849, an attachment on warrant was issued out of Allegany county court, at the instance of Michael Trieber, the appellee, to affect the goods, chattels, lands, tenements and credits, of one John Gamber, a non resident debtor.

<p>THIS was ¿¡.fieri facias, issued out of this court on the 3 7th July, 1790, directed to the sheriff of Washington county, who, at the return, day, certified that the defendant had showed and delivered, to him, upon o.ath, certain lands, tenements, goods and chattels, which were appraised to nearly the amount of the debt, and that he was ready to convey the same to the plaintiff, in discharge of the debt.</p> <p>Motion was made on the part of the plaintiff, to set. aside the return on the fieri facias, and that a venditioni exponas issue.</p> <p>The question for the court was, whether the act of assembly of 1716, c. 16. relating to the execution of a fieri facias, was repealed by the federal constitution.</p>

THIS was an action of debt on a bond. By the statement of facts agreed on, and submitted to the court for their opinion and judgment thereon, it appears, That Thomas Bladen, the above mentioned, and Charles Wells, the defendant, on the 1st of April, 1773, were subjects of the King of Great Britain, and on the said day and year the said Charles Wells, with William Goodwin, his security, executed his three obligations to the said Thomas Bladen.

Appear from Baltimore county court. This was an attachment on warrant, issued at the instance of the appellee, on the 17th of April 1848, to affect the lands, tenements, goods, chattels and credits of George W. Philips, a non-resident debtor. This attachment was laid in the hands of Lawrence Sangston, who appeared as garnishee and pleaded non assumpsit on behalf of Philips, and nulla bona of Philips in his hands, on which pleas issues were joined.

This was an action of replevin, instituted by the appellee against the appellant, to recover a horse alleged to be the property of the plaintiff. The pleas were: — 1st, noncepit; 2nd, property in defendant; and 3rd, property in a stranger. lsf Exception.

This was an action of assumpsit by the appellee (the plaintiff below,) against the appellant (the defendant below,) to recover a sum of money due on account, &c. The account on which the plaintiff claimed was filed with the nar.

This was an action of trover, instituted on the 22nd of October 1850, by the appellant, as administrator of Sarah Seward, against the appellee, to recover the value of a negro slave, “Minty,” and her two children. The declaration contained two counts.

This was an attachment on warrant, sued out of the circuit court for Washington county, by the appellant, on the 15th of September 1851, to affect the lands and tenements, goods, chattels and credits, of one John A. Grimes, a non-resident debtor, returnable to the November term 1851, of said court. This attachment was levied on the 18th of September 1851, upon certain real estate in Washington county, as the property and estate of said Grimes.

<p>THIS was on an indictment which set forth that Tho,mas Tibbs, jun. was presented and indicted for an assault and battery committed on the 9th of June, 1790, on the body of Woolman Gibson, jun.</p> <p>The defendant having been arrested on a capias, appeared, and at this term submitted to the court and was fined 50/. current money; security was taken for the fine and fees.</p> <p>The defendant brought a writ of error on the 26th of November, 1791. The court of appeals, at June term, 1793, reversed the judgment of the general court.</p>

THIS was an appeal from the county court of MontgomeryIt was an action of partition brought by the appellee against the appellant for the partitioning of -three parcels of land called Ward’s Chance, Beall’s Design, and Comfort.

THIS was an action- of debt on a writing obligatory for the sum of 3,082l. 9s. 7d. current money, conditioned for the payment of certain sums of money on certain days therein mentioned, by way of instalments. The whole of the instalments were not due at the trial.

AN appeal from the orphans’ court of Ann Arundel county. The case was this : Stephen Boone, of Ann Arundel county, died, leaving a widow, to whom he be queathed a part of his personal estate. The widow died before the expiration of forty days after her husband’s death, and did not make her, election whether she would abide by the will or not.

THIS was an inquiry of damages issued on a judgment in ejectment, obtained at May term, 1787. In July, 1791, the writ of inquiry of damages issued, and an inquisition found, awarding to the plaintiff 87/. current money, damages.

THIS was an action of debt on a bond. The plaintiff had judgment and issued a ca. sa. which was delivered by the sheriff to the plaintiff’s attorney, at his request, during the sitting of the court to which the writ was made returnable, and was mislaid. The plaintiff’s attorney procured a copy or duplicate of the ca. sa¿ from the clerk, upon which the sheriff returned cepi, and brought the defendant into court.

Aepeal from the Equity Side of the Circuit Court fop.Allegany county.

EJECTMENT for a tract of land called Smith Field, lying in Dorchester county. By the bills of exceptions it appears s 1. The plaintiff, to make title to the land for which this ejectment was brought, produced the patent granted to Charles Hutchins, on the 30th May, 1683.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, for 291/. 6s. 8d¡ current money, for labour, services and diligence, as a judge of the court of admiralty, by the said Benjamin in his lifetime.

THIS was an action of debt on a writing obligatory, dated the 18th November, 1779, in the penalty of 25,000/. circulating currency, conditioned for the payment of 12,500/. circulating currency, at or before the 1st of October, 1781, bearing legal interest, from .the 1st of October, 1780. Plea, payment By the bills of exceptions taken at the trial it appears ; 1.

THIS was an appeal from Calvert county court. It was an action on the case for the escape of a runaway negro. By the bills of exceptions taken at the trial at September term, it appears: 1. The plaintiff offered in evidence an advertisement in the Maryland Gazette, which advertisement is as follows: '■'■May 6, 1784. Committed to Calvert county gaol, as a runaway, on the 1st instant, Negro Tom, who says he belongs to John Somervell, of St. Mary's county.

THE Attorney-General, on the 20th of September, 1791, issued out of the general court office, a writ of certiorari, directed to the chief justice and associate justices of Charles county court, for the removal of a criminal prosecution depending in the said counry court against one Francis Thompson, for murder, returnable to the general court, at the October term following; on which day the said chief justice and associate justices, caused a proceeding to be returned to the…

THIS was an action of ejectment, referred to Gabriel Duvall and Henry Ridgely, Esquires, attorneys at law, with liberty to choose a’third person as umpire.

This case originated in a petition filed in said orphans court on the 8th of February 1848, by the appellant, the brother and sole next of kin of Cornelius Vansant, deceased, praying that the appellee might be required to deliver up to him all the property of the said testator remaining in his hands, after paying the debts- and funeral expenses, &c. The case was submitted upon an- agreed statement of facts, in which it was admitted, that said Cornelius Vansant died on the…

<p>THIS was a scire facias issued from the county court of Baltimore, against Carolina Patten, administratrix of Thomas Patten, who was special bail of Charles Harris> upon a judgment obtained at August term, 1787, against the said Carolina, as administratrix of the said Thomas Patten. Plea, flene administravit, and general replication. The case was removed from the county court by a writ of certiorari issued on the part of the defendant.</p> <p>. The following case was stated for the opinion of the Gourt, viz.</p> <p>At March term, 1785, a judgment was obtained for the plaintiff on a scire facias, against Thomas Patten, as specialbail of Charles Harris, for the sum of 158/. 185. &d. current money, and 446lb. tobacco, costs, in Baltimore county court; and in August term, 1787, the same was revived by scire facias against the defendant, as administratrix of the said Thomas Patten, and judgment when assets should come to her hands.</p> <p>It is admitted, that afterwards assets belonging to the intestate came to the defendant’s hands, to the amount of 154/. 155. 6d. current money.</p> <p>That the said Thomas Patten, in his lifetime, together with James Alcock and Mans el Alcock, on the 15 th day of June, 1785, executed a bond to the state of Maryland, of the penalty of 800/. current money, and bound themselves jointly and severally therein, conditioned that the said James Alcock should pay to the treasurer of the Western Shore for the time being, the sum of 400/. current money, on the 1st of January, 1790. The defendant hath paid in discharge of the bond due to the state, the above amount of the estate in her hands, to the treasurer aforesaid, after the judgment, when assets should come to her hands as aforesaid, was obtained, and before the bond due to the state was put in suit.</p> <p>The point submitted to the court is, whether the state, or the judgment, is to be first preferred in the 'payment of the intestate’s debts. If the state is to be preferred, then judgment of nonsuit to be entered; but if the judgment creditor is to be preferred before the state, then fat to be entered with costs, to bind the above sum of 154/. 15s. 6d. current money, assets in the hands of the defendant, and costs.</p>

THIS was a bill filed to obtain an injunction, and was filed in this court because the chancellor was interested. The bill stated that Francis Sprang, and Elizabeth his wife, being seised of lot No. A. in the city of Annapolis, sold and conveyed the same to Nathan Hammond, by deed, dated 13th July, 1759. That Francis Sprang died in the year 1772, and the said Elizabeth, his wife, after-wards, in 1773, intermarried with Thomas Staines.

In this case a judgment was confessed below by the appeh lant in favor of the appellee, Walker, on the 11-th of April 1849, in debt on a single bill for $500 and costs, with interest from April 5th, and stay of execution till December 11th-, 1850, On the 12th of October 1850, this judgment was assigned to Gieselman, who, on the 20th of December 1850, is^sued a fi. fa. thereon, returnable to the following February term.

IN this case a suit was brought in the county court of Baltimore by the appellant, upon a single bill, dated the 2d of August, 1783, for 141/. 15s. current money, which bill was endorsed ; that the testator, on the 4th October, 1784, paid 94/. Os. 6d. current money, and also a payment made 29th January, 1785, of 21/. 11s. current money. The writ issued on the 3d of February, 1791.

This appeal was taken from a pro forma decree of the orphans court of Talbot county, admitting to probate an unexecuted codicil to the will of Charlotte L. Edmondson.

THIS was an action of debt upon a bond, dated the 24th of September, 1778, conditioned for the payment of 442/. 10s. “ at or upon”, the 1st of September, 17,88, with interest thereon. The defendant pleaded payment on the 1st of October, 1788, according to the statute, &c. and payment on the 1st of September, 1788, according to the condition of the bond. The plaintiff replied the general replication of non-payment to each of the pleas, and issues were joined.

THIS was an appeal from Anne Arundel county court, from a judgment rendered at November term, 1790, in favour of Boston, the appellee, on his petition for freedom. The petitioner claimed his freedom as being a descendant from a yellow woman, being a Portuguese, named Catharine Boston»

ON the 31st of December, 1788, a writ of scire facias issued out of the general court, against the terretenants of Mark Alexander, on a judgment rendered against the said Alexander in the provincial court, at April term,, 1775, in favour of the present plaintiffs, which scire facias was served on sundry terretenants of the said Alexander, and among others the present defendant, who appeared and separately pleaded payment.

The declaration contains the common counts. The plea was non assumpsit. The cause was tried below on the 9th of April 1851, before Martin, C. J., Marshall and Wiesel, A. J., and in the course of the trial six exceptions were taken by the defendant, all of which are fully stated in the opinion of this court. The verdict and judgment were in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

THIS was an action of replevin of goods taken by the defendant as sheriff, to satisfy his poundage and other fees due on a writ of fieri facias and a venditioni exponas, which last writ was countermanded before execution. The cause was removed from the county court of Frederick, by a writ of pone. See the defendant’s avowry, and the general demurrer thereto, in 2 Harris’s Entries, 493 — 496.

THIS was an action on the case for a reward, founded on the following proclamation and advertisement, published in one of the newspapers edited in the city of Baltimore, to wit s By his Excellency, John Eager Howard, Esq. Governor of Maryland. u A Proclamation. ■‘ Whereas by the deposition of Rezin Hammond, Esq. of Anne Arundel county, it appears, &c. &c. And where- ^ obviously the duty of the executive to guard as much as may be against the commission of such enormities,…

<p>THIS was a removal by writ of error from Anne Arundel county court, of a judgment for the defendant, had at September term, 1792.</p> <p>It was an action of assumpsit for work and labour and materials found, &c. by the plaintiff’s testator for the defendant’s testator. No assumpsit (within' three years) by the executor defendant to the executor plaintiff, was alleged in the declaration. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. Verdict and judgment for the defendant.</p> <p>The following bill of exceptions was taken at the trial, to wit:</p> <p>In this cause the defendant pleaded the act of limitations, and the plaintiff, having first executed the following release, under his hand and seal, to wit, “ I hereby release all my right, title, claim and interest, and commission as executor of Henry May, to the devisees and representatives of the said May, which I now have, or hereafter may have, on the amount of his claim and demand, against Joseph Cowman, executor of Joseph Cowman, for which suit is brought in Anne Arundel county court,” &c. offered himself as a witness to prove that the defendant had assumed and promised payment of the sum of money for which this action was brought, within three years next before the impetration of the writ original in this cause. But the court refused to admit the said plaintiff executor as aforesaid to be, sworn as a witness, because he was an incompetent witness, To which opinion the plaintiff excepted.'</p>

<p>Whilst proceedings in insolvency are, pending before the county court, for the purpose of ascertaining and adjusting the claims of different creditors to dividends from the insolvent’s estate, one of those creditors, whose claim is there disputed by the others, cannot maintain an action on the trustee’s bond for alleged misconduct, neglect or fraud, in the administration of the estate.</p> <p>The proper and only tribunal to adjust the claims of creditors of an insolvent’s estate, inter sese, is the county court of the county where the insolvent petitions, and this court might have decided that the plaintiff'was no creditor at all, and until this fact bo determined he cannot sue upon the trustee’s bond, as no one but a creditor can so sue.</p>

This was a scire facias under the mechanics lien laws, sued out by the appellee, (the plaintiff below,) on the 6th of February 1849, on a claim for lien filed by him on the 10th of July 1848, against foily-four acres of land belonging to the Okisko company, and the improvements thereon, consisting of the mill or main building, the dam, the dye-house, the machine-shop, and the upper and lower buildings used as dwellings, (the amount claimed on each being specified,) for…

<p>A CERTIORARI issued in October, 1791, to remove a motion, &c. The record transmitted to the general court states that, in September, 1791, “ on motion of Thomas ¡Jenry Egan (who, antecedent to the act of assembly for the better administration of justice in the several counties of this state, was an attorney of Charles county' court) to be admitted to enter his appearance to several suits now in court depending, the said Thomas Henry Egan not having taken out a license of admission agreeably to the said act; it is ordered, adjudged and determined by the court, that the motion aforesaid be not allowed.”</p> <p>The county court refused to permit Thomas H. Egan to practise law in that court without taking out a license and paying therefor according to the act of 1791, new modelling the county courts; and the question for the general court was, 1st. Whether the tax on attorneys at law, imposed by the above act, or the money directed to be paid for a license was a poll tax, and against the declaration of rights ? 2. If so, whether the said tax was void on that account.</p>

THIS was an action on a writing obligatory, dated the 17th May, 1788. , The defendant, amongst other pleas, pleaded as follows : (Vide 2 Harris’s Entries, SSI.) “ And the said Catharine comes and defends, &c. and saith that she the said Catharine cannot deny the promises and assumptions of him the said Mathew, in the said declaration mentioned, but she the said C. saith, that by a certain act of the general assembly of the state of Maryland, made at November session, in the…

<p>THE act of 1785, c. 80. says, “no creditor shall be entitled to any priority,” and directs the executor to advertise in all the places within this or any other of the United States, where any creditors of the deceased are supposed to reside, for all creditors to appear, &c.</p>

Cross-Appeals from Baltimore county court. This was an action of debt, brought by the executors of Nicholas Owings against Emory and Gault,.to recover $500 rent on a lease made by said Owings, on. the 11th of June 1840, for the term of six years. The lessees,, Emory and Gault, were to enter the demised premises on the 11th of November 1840, and the rent claimed was for the first year.

<p>THIS was an action of debt on a testamentary, bond, given on the estate of Philip Key, dated the 22d of September, 1764, executed by Richard W,. Edmund and T'ho-mas Key, (the executors,) with William and Jeremiah Jordan, their securities.</p> <p>The defendant pleaded special and general performance. The plaintiff, in his replications, assigned for breaches, 1st The non-payment of a legacy ; 2d. The non-payment of a debt due by' the testator to the plaintiff. To these replications. the defendant rejoined that the executors were appointed guardians to the legatee. The plaintiff demurred generally to the rejoinders. (For the replications and rejoinders at length, see 2 Harris’s Entries, 326. and 329.)</p> <p>In this case, Philip Key devised certain legacies to his grandchildren, of whom the plaintiff, Susanna G. Key, was one, and gave these legacies on condition that his executors should be guardians, and have the care of the persons and education of the legatees, and the management of their estates.</p> <p>It was agreed by the counsel, that the intention of the pleadings and demurrers in this cause was singly" to have the opinion of the court, whether Susanna Gardiner Key had remedy on the testamentary bond against the securities, to compel payment to her of the share of the personal estate of Philip Key, devised to her under the conditions specified in the will; or whether the said conditions exonerated the testamentary securities altogether as to her legacy ?</p>

<p>EJECTMENT for lot No. 61. in George Town, in Montgomery county.</p> <p>At the trial of the cause, two bills of exceptions were taken.</p> <p>By the first, it appears the plaintiff, in order to support the issue on his part, offered to read in evidence to the jury, a paper certified by the clerk of Montgomery county, and under the seal of the county court of the said county, which paper was a statement of the proceedings of commissioners appointed by law, for the purpose of laying out George Town, in Montgomery county, whereby it appeals that lot No. 61. was sold to Joseph Belt, jun. on the 24th of March, 1752, for 30 shillings, on the 27th of June, 1774 ; the lot not having been improved, was sold to Adam Stewart and Thomas Richardson, for 30 shillings, who not improving it, the same was, on the 29th of May, 1782, sold to Charles Beatty for 30 shillings. That on the 12th of June, Charles Beatty paid 30 shillings for the lot, in consequence of the sale of the 29th of May. On the 5th of July, 1784, (previous to which time John House had made application to become the purchaser of the said lot, as forfeited by Charles Beatty,) the question was put “ whether lot No. 61. was improved, on the 29th of 3.lay last, agreeably to law? and whether, as Charles Beatty has proceeded in the improvement of said lot, further indulgence of a short time should be allowed him or not ?” Both questions were determined in the negative by the commissioners. That Charles Beatty, previous to the questions being taken, entered his objections, and notice of his intention to petition the legislature. That on the 25th of September, 1785, on the application of John House, it was unanimously adjudged, by the commissioners, that lot No. 61. was improved agreeably to law. It was also adjudged by them, that it should be entered in their proceedings, that Charles Beatty had improved the said lot. The clerk of the county court certified, “ that the within is a true copy of the proceedings of the commissioners of George Town, with respect to the lot No. 61. taken from their records lodged in my office.”</p> <p>The defendant objected to this evidence as incompetent and improper in point of law, to go to the jury.</p> <p>The Court (Chase, Ch. J. and Goedsborough J.) were of opinion, that the paper offered was legal and competent evidence, and permitted it to be read to the jury. The defendant excepted to this opinion.</p> <p>2. By the second bill of exception, it appears that the plaintiff, in addition to the paper mentioned in the first bill of exception, offered parol evidence to prove, that Gharles Beatty applied to the commissioners of George Town, to purchase lot No. 61. as being forfeited under the law, and did purchase the same, and that he did not, within two years after payment of the purchase-money and entry thereof, build such house thereon as the act of assembly requires ; and that the plaintiff applied to the commissioners to purchase the lot, as being forfeited by the said Beatty, and that he became the purchaser thereof from the commissioners, and paid the purchase-money. That within two years after such application, there were such buildings and improvements erected thereon as the law requires; which buildings and improvements were proved to have been made by Beatty, the defendant, who remained in possession of the lot, and continued in the possession thereof from the 29th of May, 1792, until the trial, and the said improve» ments were made by Beatty, adverse to the right of the r</p> <p>Whereupon the plaintiff prayed the following opinion and direction of the court to the jury : That if the defendant did not build as the act of 1751, c. 25. directs, within the time limited by the said act, he forfeited all title to the lot No. 61. together with any improvements thereon, and that if he afterwards remained in possession, he was a wrongdoer. That the plaintiff, on his application and payment of the sum required by the act, and entry thereof made as the act directs, became then entitled to, and seised in fe of, the said lot, on condition that if he did not build as the act directs, he forfeited his right; but, that if the defendant prevented House, the plaintiff, by force, and retained possession of the lot, and thereby prevented the plaintiff from making improvements, the forfeiture did not attach against the plaintiff, and that if a building was erected on the lot according to the directions of the act, within the time limited, (i. e. within two years from the time of the application by House, the plaintiff, and the payment of the sum required by the act,) such building will be considered in law a compliance by the plaintiff with the requisites of the act of assembly, and will operate for his benefit, although such building'was erected by Beatty, the defendant, or by any other person.</p>

THIS was an appeal from the county court of Frederick. The appellee, on his petition to the said court, obtained judgment of freedom, in November, 1793. The record states, that the petitioner was a slave to the appellant in the island of Saint Domingo, and as such was brought into the United States, by the appellant, after the disturbances in France and the islands, viz. in or about the year 1791.

This was an action of ejectment, brought by the appellants to recover an undividcdjhird part of a certain tract of land mentioned in the declaration.

Appear, from Cecil county court. This was an action of assumpsit brought by the appellant, who wras a property agent or broker, to recover from the appellee the value of services alleged to have been rendered by him in procuring a purchaser for a certain house in the city of Baltimore belonging to the appellee. The declaration contained the usual indebitatus assumpsit counts, and the plea was non assumpsit. Exception.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought on the ,2nd of December 1846, by the appellant, the holder of a promissory note, against the appellee, the endorser. The defendant was returned non est, and the writ renewed from term to term, until January term, 1850, when, upon return of cepi, the defendant appeared and plead non assumpsit, and issue was joined.

THIS was an action of debt, on a bond dated the 11th of A:>rt i 1767, executed by William MiIlvaine and Samuel Gallo-way to the plaintiff, in the penal sum of 600/. sterling, jointly and severally, with the following condition, viz. “ whereas, in a cause depending in the high court of chancery, between the said Thomas Sloss, complainant, and William MiIlvaine aforesaid, surviving defendant, his excellency Horatio Sharpe, Esquire, chancellor of Maryland, on the petition of…

This was an action of debt, brought by the appellee against the appellants, the securities upon the official bond of a deceased constable. The plaintiff declared generally for the penalty of the bond, without assigning breaches. The defendants demurred to the declaration, but the court overruled the demurrer and gave judgment for the plaintiff, with leave to enquire. Upon this the defendants noted an appeal.

The bill in this case was filed on the 16th of May 1841, by the appellant, as permanent trustee of Charles Grover, art insolvent debtor, and as adin’r d. b. ft., of Eaton R. Partridge, to set aside, as fraudulent against creditors, two deeds executed by Grover to the appellee, McColm, the one dated the 20th of April 1839, conveying a certain farm in Baltimore .county, the other dated July 18lh, 3^839, conveying all the stock, farming utensils, &c., on said farm.

THIS was an action of debt upon a writing obligatory, executed by Barnet Johnson, and the defendant his security, to the plaintiff, (who was then sheriff of Harford county,) on the 4th of July, 1788, and conditioned as follows, to wit: “ that if the above bound Barnet Johnson do and shall well and faithfully execute and perform the several duties required of him as deputy sheriff in Harford county aforesaid, according to law; and shall well and faithfully make return to the…

<p>THE chancellor, in this case, submitted to the general court the following statement for their opinion thereon, to wit:</p> <p>Charles Ridgely, of John, a resident of Baltimore county, seised as tenant in tail of certain land, lying in Anne Arundel county, and purposing to destroy the entail, and bar the remainders, on the 18th of 3Iarch, Í786, executed a deed indented of bargain and sale of the said land, in consideration of Ss. to his brother John Ridgely and his heirs; and the said John Ridgely, on the same day, executed a like deed for reconveying the said land to the said Charles Ridgely and his heirs.</p> <p>The said deeds, being duly executed, weré bn the same day acknowledged before two justices of the peace of Baltimore county, and, within six months from their date, recorded amongst the land records of Baltimore county.</p> <p>The said Charles Ridgely died about the year 1786, leaving his son Charles, an infant, his heir at law, and having devised the said land to his infant daughters Rachel and Rebecca, and their heirs, as tenants in common. The said devisees, on the 24th of April, 1787, by their next friend, filed a bill in chancery against their brother, ¿he said Charles, his heir at law as aforesaid, for the purpose of obtaining a decree for recording the said deeds amongst the land records of Anne Arundel county ; ° . ... the clerk of Baltimore county having previously, viz. on the 16th of April, 1787, endorsed each of them with his certificate, under the seal of his office, that the persons before whom the acknowledgments had been taken, were justices of the peace for the said county.</p> <p>The said Charles, heir as aforesaid, having been summoned to answer the said bill, and having put in his answer by his guardian, a decree was passed by the honourable John Rogers, chancellor, “ that the said deeds (describing them) be recorded among the records of Anne Arundel county, according to the prayer of the petition, and agreeable to the act of assembly in such case made and provided,”</p> <p>The said deeds were recorded amongst the records of Anne Arundel county, under, and in virtue of, the said decree.</p> <p>Afterwards, viz. on the 9th of June, 1788, certain creditors of the aforesaid Charles Ridgely, deceased, filed a bill against all his children and devisees, who were infants, for the purpose of obtaining a decree to sell the lands to them devised, for the payment of his just debts, his personal estate being insufficient. And in due course of proceeding a decree was passed directing a sale of the land, devised as aforesaid to Rachel and Rebecca, as well as the lands devised to the other children; no objection having been made, on account of the insufficiency of the aforesaid deeds to bar the entail and remainders.</p> <p>By the said last decree, William MiLaughlin was appointed trustee for selling the said lands on credit, taking bonds with security from the purchasers. He accordingly sold the land devised to Rachel and Rebecca, unto Charles Ridgely, of William, the complainant in the present cause, and took his bond for the purchase-money ; and the sale has been confirmed by the chancellor.</p> <p>And now the said complainant, being advised that the aforesaid decree for recording the deeds was not authorized by law, and that the legal and equitable title to the land by him purchased, is in the aforesaid Charles, the son and heir of the aforesaid Charles Ridgely, of John, has filed his bill to be relieved from his purchase. And forasmuch as the decision of the chancellor, on the point of law arising in this cause will not be conclusive, even if there shall be no appeal, he hath taken the liberty of stating the case to the honourable the judges of the general court, and of .requesting their opinion,</p> <p>“ Whether or not the said Charles Ridgely, of William, on paying the purchase-money, and obtaining from the trustee aforesaid, agreeably to the directions of the decreé, a deed, acknowledged and recorded agreeably to law, for conveying the land in question to him and his heirs, will be able to make out a good title against the aforesaid Charles, heir of Charles Ridgely, of John, the tenant in tail, or against those in remainder; in case an ejectment shall be hereafter brought against him by the said heir, or by any of those in remainder, on the failure of the issue in tail. “ A. C. Hanson, Chancellor”</p>

ON a case from chancery, viz. tc The chancellor being authorized by a legislative resolve, to adjust the account of the state of Maryland against the said securities, a question of law occurred, on which he requested and obtained the decision of the judges of the general court; but, on examination of the papers in this cause, remaining in the chancery office, neither the statement of the question by the chancellor, nor the decision of the judges is to be found, and the…

On the 21st of September 1836, a paper purporting to be the last will and testament of Nicholas Norris, deceased, was filed in the orphans court of Baltimore county for probate. This will bears date the 20th of September 1832, and by it the appellee, Mary Munn, the testator’s sister, was made the residuary legatee and devisee of all the estate after payment of debts, and the appellee, Henry S. Placide, and one Charles Byrne, were appointed executors.

The appellants, Wells and Miller, machinists, put up certain machines in the adamantine candle factory of Hancock and Mann, between the 7th of April and 18th of June 1846. These machines consisted principally of four presses and heaters, essential to the business of the factory.

THIS was a petition for freedom, whereby the petitioner claimed his freedom as being lineally descended in the female line from Elizabeth Shorter, a free white woman. The defendant pleaded, that t e said Elizabeth Shorter was not a free white woman. Also, that the petitioner was not lineally descended in the female line from a free white woman; and issues were joined. (See the pleas, 2 Harr.

<p>IN this case, the petitioner claimed his freedom as being descended in the female line, from a free white woman, whose name was Elizabeth Thomas.</p>

THIS was an action of debt on a writing obligatory, dated the 1st of August, 1783, executed by Zachariah Owens and James Beck, the defendant’s intestate, conditioned for the faithful performance of the said Owens of the office of deputy sheriff and collector, to the plaintiff, who was sheriff and collector of the taxes for the county of Prince George. The defendant pleaded per-1 formance.

THIS was an action of debt on a writing obligatory, dated the 6th of January, 1792, in the penal sum of 800/. conditioned for the payment of 400/. twelve months after the decease of the obligor. Non est factum was pleaded ; to which plea was annexed the affidavit of the executor, that he believed the facts set forth in the plea were true.

This was an action of covenant, brought by the appellants upon a policy of insurance for $5500, on merchandise on board the schooner Emory from Baltimore to Ware river, Virginia, underwritten by the appellee.

THIS was an ejectment brought to September term, 1782, for a tract of land called Bedford, lying in Caroline county.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the appellant, as holder, against the appellee, as payee and endorser of two promissory notes, each for $100, drawn by one John Waring, payable generally to the order of the appellee, and each dated Upper Marlborough, July 30th, 1847, the one at eighteen, and the oth,er at twenty-four months from date.

The legislature, by the act of 1847, ch. 158, entitled, “An act ceding to the United States of America the jurisdiction over the site of the Naval School at Annapolis,” enacted as follows: “Section 1st. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, that the jurisdiction and control over the lands owned by the United States, constituting the site of the Naval School at Annapolis, formerly known as Fort Severn, together with the lots recently purchased by the United…

Appeax. from Baltimore county court. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the appellees to recover from the appellant, Lewis, §583.09, the amount of a draft drawn upon him by one Thomas S. Robinson, payable to the order of George Kowarth ninety days after date, and dated the 16th of April 1849. The declaration contained the common money counts, and a special count charging the appellant as acceptor. The plea was non assumpsit. 1st Exception.

Cross-Appeals from the’ Court of Chancery.- The bill in. this case was filed by Thomas and Philip Baltzell, on the 24th of June 1841, against William B. Trump, to recover the sum of $2100, under the facts alleged in the bill, which, together with the terms of the articles of copartnership between the parties, are sufficiently stated in, the opinion of this court.

The bill in this case was filed by the appellee for the sale of certain real estate, mortgaged to it by the Susquehanna Bridge and Bank Company, by deed, dated the 21st of February .1834, to secure the sum of {$10,000/ due and owing to the appellee. Charles F. Mayer and others, receivers, appointed by the court of chancery to take charge of the effects of the Bridge and Bank Company, were also made defendants.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the appellee, to recover money loaned by his intestate to the appellant.The pica was non assumpsit, with notice of set-off.’ 1st Exception. The plaintiff proved that the defendant,' Glenn, purchased a mare from one Barber, for $250, and on' the next day, by a written order, dated 20th of October 1845, requested Rogers, the plaintiff’s intestate, to advance the money for him to Barber, which Rogers did.

THIS was an action of assumpsit on a promise to pay the sum of 606/. 2s. 9. 3-4sterling money, with interest from the 10th of October, 1771. Plea, non assumpsit.

<p>THE following statement and questions were submitted by the chancellor to the general court: “ In chancery, May 14, 1793. This cause depends principally upon a question of title, viz. Whether the legal title to certain lands be in Brice Hoxvard, or in the infant heir of John Beale Hoxvard, deceased.</p> <p>“ It appears that the said John Beale Howard, seised in fee-tail of the said lands lying in Anne Arundel county, some short time before his death, duly executed a deed indented, whereby he bargained and sold the said lands to the said Brice Howard and his heirs. On the bach .if ..... . ~ , , ,. the said deed is a certificate in the usual ror.-v,, ¡ .vojustices of the said county, ‘ that on the day-->* , the said John Beale Howard came before them, i<t:o acknowledged the within instrument of writing to be Hs act and deed.*</p> <p>“ The said deed and certificate were recorded agreeably to law, within six months from the date of the deed.</p> <p>“ First. Can parol evidence be admitted at law to prove-that the said justices separately took the said acknowledgment on different days and at different places within the said county ?</p> <p>“ Secondly. If such evidence be admissible, and if it be-proved that the said acknowledgment was so taken, was the said deed good and effectual in law to pass the said lands to the bargainee, Brice Howard?'</p> <p>“ The chancellor begs leave to submit the above case to the honourable the judges of the general court, and to-request their decision on the above questions as early as may be consistent with their convenience.</p> <p>“ A. C. Hanson,* Chan.”</p>

THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff, who had been sheriff and collector of taxes. The declaration contained two counts, one for money advanced, laid out and expended, &c. the other an insimul computasset. The plaintiff filed his account, charging the defendant with public taxes, execution and officers’ fees, which had become due while the plaintiff Avas sheriff and collector. Plea, non assumpsit.

<p>The trustees for the salo of certain mortgaged property, postponed the sale at the request of the mortgagor, who stipulated that they should he allowed extra or double commissions. Held, that this W83 a personal contract with the mortgagor, and gave the trustees no right to claim commissions for the postponed sale out of the proceeds of sale.</p>

THIS was an action of trespass vi et armis, for break» ing and entering the close of the plaintiff, &c. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations, but pleaded actio non accrevit infra duos annos, instead of actio non accrevit infra tres annos. The plea was de» murred to, and motion made for leave to amend.

<p>There is no doubt but that in Maryland a writ of error cm-am nobis lies to correct an error in fact in the same court where the record is; if there be error in the process, or through default of the clerk, it will be reversed in the same court by writ of error sued thereon before the same judge.</p> <p>In a writ of error coram nobis to the county court to correct a judgment of fiat, the error assigned was that the scire facias recited a judgment which had no existence; the court sustained a demurrer to this assignment, and gave judgment for the defendant in error. Held:</p> <p>That whether this be an error of law or of fact, this ruling must be sustained, for if it be error of law the writ coram nobis does not apply, and if of fact there is nothing to correct, as the scire facias sets out. a perfect, judgment justifying the judgment fiat.</p> <p>The entry of fiat upon the return of one nihil is a clear case of imgularity and expressly provided for by the act of 1787, ch. 9, sec. 6; the defendant has a clear right to move the court to strike out the fiat, and when this motion is granted, appear and plead nul tiel record, which brings before the court directly the existence of the judgment on which the sci. fa. is founded.</p> <p>An appeal does not lie from an order overruling a motion to quash a writ of error coram nobis, it not being a final judgment from which an appeal properly lies.</p>

THIS was an appeal from a decree of the chancellor, dismissing the bill of the complainant at February term, 1791. The bill, filed on the 2d of April, 1785, states that John Lamar, father of the complainant, being indebted to Bryan Philpot, of London, merchant, for securing the payment of the money, on the 1st of October, 1756, executed a mortgage of .two tracts of land, subject to a clause of redemption on the 1st of October, 1757. He also mortgaged sundry negro slaves.

Tbe bill in this case was filed by the appellee on the 20th.

THIS was an ejectment upon separate demises for a tract of land called “ Thomas’s Adventure,” lying in Baltimore county. The defendants took defence upon warrant, and plots were made. At the trial of the issue at the last term, the plaintiff offered in evidence the certificate of Thomas’s Adventure, surveyed for John Thomas, on the 2d of September, 1688; also a grant to the said Thomas for the said land, dated the 6th of May, 1689.

This was an action of assumpsit, instituted by the appellee, the plaintiff below, upon a policy of insurance for $>5000 upon the life of Jonathan Nesbitt, underwritten by the appellant, the defendant below, and assigned by said Nesbitt to the appellee, in trust for the use of Mary E. Nesbitt. The declaration sets out the policy, its assignment, and the death of Nesbitt. The plea was non assumpsit. Exception.

THIS wás a removal by habeas corpus, from the county court of Frederick. It was an action for money had and received, brought under the statute of 9 Anne, c. 14. entitled “ An act for the better preventing of excessive and deceitful gaming,” to recover back a sum of money won at gaming by the defendant from the plaintiff.

<p>EJECTMENT for a lot of ground in Sharpsburg town, in Washington county, No. 88. being part of a tract called Hickory Tavern.</p> <p>By the bill of exceptions taken in the cause, it appears the plaintiff’s counsel produced and read the patent of the tract of land mentioned in the declaration, of which it was admitted the lot No. 88. was part; and it was admitted that a certain John Lejfie, of Washington county, was seised in fee-simple of the said lot, on the 2d of May, 1/86; and being so seised, he was duly taken and committed in execution, at the suit of a certain Solomon Brumfield, on a ca. sa. duly issued out of Washington county court; and being so committed, he petitioned three justices of the peace for the said county, to be discharged as an insolvent debtor, under the act of assembly, entitled “ An act for the relief of insolvent debtors,” passed in the year 1ZZ4. That in pursuance of the said petition, (all the requisites prescribed by the said act having been complied with, except that Lejfie did not sign the schedule of his estate, debts and credits; and that the justices did not subscribe as witnesses to the said schedule according to the directions of the said act,) the said justices did, on the 2d of May, 1787, by their order in writing, command the sheriff of the said county to set Leffle at liberty, which was done accordingly, That the justices did transmit the schedule to the clerk of the county court, (and no other schedule of the estate, debts and credits of the said Leffle^ which was not signed or subscribed by Leffle, or the justices, or any of them. That afterwards, on the 25th of April, 1791, the sheriff sold, and duly conveyed the said lot to David Harvey, who afterwards sold and conveyed the same to the defendant. That before the said conveyance, on the 26th of March, 1791, the said Leffle conveyed the said lot to the lessor of the plaintiff.</p> <p>The plaintiff’s counsel thereupon prayed the opinion of the court, and their direction to the jury, that the proceedings by the justices on the petition, and their order of discharge, did not vest the said land in the sheriff of Washington county.</p>

PROCEDENDO on a reversal in the court of appeals. (See the case reported at May term, 1793, ante, 136.) The cause again came on for trial, and “ the defendant gave in evidence to the jury, in support of his issue, that he being indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum for which this action is brought, and also to the plaintiff, Alien §>uynn, in two other obligations, each of which was dated the same day, and executed by the defendant to the said §>uynn, to secure the payment of…

Appeals from the Court of Chancery. On the 1st of February 1843, David Steuart, Jr., and wife, residents of Baltimore city, mortgaged lauds lying in Anne Arundel county to Handel M. Hayden, to secure the sum of $1500, owing to the latter. On the 14th of March 1848, Hayden filed his bill to foreclose this mortgage, and there being no dispute, the defendants consented to a decree for a sale, which was passed on the 18th of the same month.

The bill in this case was filed by the appellants, on the 30th of August 1845, and alleges, that Wm.

Appear from Ihe Court of Chancery. “The Washington Medical College of Baltimore,” incorporated by tbe act of 1832, ch. 189, and afterwards by the act of 1838, ch. 138, styled “The Washington University of Baltimore,” executed, on the 24th of July 1835, a deed conveying to the appellees, Conkling,- Mayer, Frazier and Corner, certain leasehold property in the city of Baltimore, upon the terms and conditions therein expressed.

<p>THIS was an action on the case against the defendant-being an innkeeper, for goods lost in his house belonging to the plaintiff, then his guest. (See the declaration in 1 Harris’s -Entries, 460.) The defendant pleaded the general issue. Verdict for the plaintiff.</p> <p>At the trial of the cause, the plaintiff, to prove that the defendant was a common innkeeper, offered parol evidence. It was objected by the defendant that no evidence was admissible to prove that fact, but a copy of the record from Baltimore county court, showing that the defendant was licensed to keep tavern. s</p>

THIS was an action of dozver, for the third part of a tract of land called Homisham, lying in Calvert county, and 300/. current money rent, which the plaintiffs claim as the dower of the said Providence, of the endowment of her former husband, Richard Lane, deceased. The defendant pleaded that Richard Lane was never seised, See.

THIS was an action of debt, on a writing obligatory, dated the 17th of October, 1770. The original writ issued on the 17th of yanuary, 1791. The defendant pleaded the act of limitations.

<p>THIS action was brought by the plaintiff, who had been sheriff of the county of Anne Arundel, against the defendant, to recover the sum of 352l. 18s. 9d. current money, for his poundage fees on sundry joint executions which issued against the defendant’s testator and other persons by the state'of Maryland, to October term, 1788.</p>

The bill in this case was filed on the 5th of March- 1846, by the appellee, as permanent trustee of William C. Spindler, an insolvent debtor, to vacate certain conveyances of the insolvent as fraudulent against creditors.

The lessor of the plaintiff (as appears by the bill of exceptions taken at the trial) gave in evidence a patent of confirmation for the tract of land in the declaration mentioned, granted to James Downes, jun. on the 20th of December, 1681, for 320 acres of land called Hopton^ (20 acres to be laid out for the use of the county,) and further gave in evidence a deed executed by the said James Downes to Richard Sweatman, conveying the said land to the said Sweatman, which deed…

This w'as a petition for freedom, filed by the appellee against' the appellant, and’ the issue tried was freedom vel non. Exception.

<p>THIS was an action of ejectment, for a tract of land called Security to Paint Point, lying in Dorchester county.</p> <p>The case stated for the opinion of the court was, that a certain Richard Dawson, on the 27th of August, 1775, was seised in fee of the premises mentioned in the declaration, and being so seised made his last will and testament; and thereby devised, the same to a certain Mary Ann M'Keel, and her heirs for ever, and afterwards, in the year 1777, being possessed thereof, departed this life. That after the making of the said will, and in the lifetime of the testator, .the said Mary intermarried with Jeremiah Connerby. That the said Connerby and wife, after the death of the said Dawson, entered, and being seised, on the 16th of December, 1777, by deed of bargain and sale, conveyed the said land to George Waterf, the acknowledgment of which deed is as follows:</p> <p>“ Maryland: Dorchester county, December 16, 1777.</p> <p>“ Be it remembered that on the day and year above written, personally appeared before us the subscribers, two of the justices" of the peace of the county aforesaid, the above-named Jeremiah Connerby, and Mary Ann, his wife, and acknowledged the lands and tenements in the above deed contained, tobe the right, title, interest and estate of the above named George Waters, his heirs, &c. agreeably to the true intent and meaning of the above deed ; the same Mary Ann having been first privately examined by us secretly and apart and separate from her husband, whether she did the same freely and willingly of her own accord, and without being induced thereto by the threats of her husband, or fear of his displeasure, or ill usage from him, and having assured us she did the same voluntarily and without being induced thereto by any of the causes aforesaid, according to an act of assembly in such case made and provided.”</p> <p>That after the execution of the said deed the said Waters entered into the land, and was seised thereof; and being so seised, afterwards, in 1778, died intestate, and without issue ; whereupon the interest of the said Waters in the said premises descended to John Waters, his eldest brother and heir at law who entered, and being seised devised the said land to William Waters, the defendant, and his heirs in fee-simple,' and afterwards died so seised, when the defendant entered.</p> <p>That Jeremiah Connerby died in 1784, and afterwards, on the 20th of December, 1793, the said Alary Ann Can» nerby, the widow of the said Jeremiah, having entered upon the said premises, and claimed the same as her right and property, executed a deed of bargain and sale of the same to Abraham Lewis, the lessor of the plaintiff, who entered, &c.</p>

. • This was an action of trespass on the case, brought by the appellee against the appellant, to' recover damages- caused by. the working of a- stone quarry. The declaration contains two counts.

THIS was an action of covenant for the sale of a tract of land, at 45s. per acre. The defendant pleaded payment; general replication, and issue joined.

THIS was an ejectment for part of Bradford's Reit, lying in Montgomery county. Defence was taken on warrant, and plats were returned. At the trial of the cause the plaintiff’s counsel offered evidence that the tract of land called Bradfoid's Rest-was granted to John Bradford, on the 10th of December, 1713, for 2,658 acres, and on the 10th of June, 1718, Bradford resurveyed the said land, and included 4,992 acres more.

<p>THIS was an action on the case for diverting an ancient water-course.</p> <p>By the bill of exceptions taken at the trial it appears, the plaintiffs made title to the land in the declaration mentioned, called Penny Pack Pond, under a patent granted to Peter Rench in March, 1753, and by him conveyed by deed of bargain and sale, duly executed and recorded, bearing date on the 13th November, IT81. And to support their action the plaintiffs offered evidence to prove that the water, for the diversion of which this action is brought, formerly run through the land above mentioned. That about 27 or 28 years ago, George Nicholas Mung, the father of the defendant, di= verted the said stream of water from its ancient course, as located by the plaintiffs upon the plats returned in the cause, and turned it into the course in which it now runs, as located upon the said plats.</p> <p>The plaintiffs also offered evidence to prove that the said stream of water has, ever since the said diversion by George Nicholas Mung, run where it now runs as located on the plats returned, and still runs there; that the land through which the said stream mow runs, is held and claimed by the defendant, Jacob Mung, and has been so held and claimed by him ever since the 1st of January, 1792. That the defendant ever since that time has continued, and still does continue, to use the said stream of water in the channel in which it now runs", by watering his stock therein, by enclosing it within his fences, and by throwing the water thereout occasionally upon his meadow. 1</p> <p>The defendant’s counsel prayed the opinion of - the court, that this evidence was not sufficient in law to enable the plaintiffs to sustain their.action.</p>

<p>EJECTMENT, for part of a tract of land called The Dunghill, lying in Montgomery county.</p> <p>By the statement of facts submitted to the court for their opinion, it is admitted and agreed, that the tract of land called The Dunghill, containing 536 acres, was granted by Charles, late Lord Baltimore, on the 10th of August, 1715, by patent, to Walter Evans. That the said Walter Evans, by virtue of the said patent, was seised and possessed of the said tract of land, and being so seised, on or about the 10th of August, 1724, did execute a deed of conveyance to James Herbert and Eleanor his wife, by which he conveyed “ unto the said James Herbert, during his lifetime, and Eleanor his wife, and the heirs of her body, lawfully begotten, for ever, all the said Walter and Ann his wife’s right of, in and to the aforesaid tract and parcel of land called The Dunghill, lying in Prince George’s county aforesaid, beginning, &c. including 100 acres j to have and to hold the said Walter and Ann their right of, in and to the aforesaid tract of land, with the premises and appurtenances, unto him the said James during his lifetime, and Eleanor his wife, and heirs, lawfully begotten, for ever, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of them the said James Herbert and Eleanor his wife as aforesaid.”</p> <p>It is further agreed that in virtue of the said deed, the said James Herbert and Eleanor his wife, (daughter of the said Walter Evans,) entered into the 100 acres mentioned in the declaration, and were seised and possessed thereof, and had issue Wiliiam Herbert, who is since dead without issue, and Linney Herbert, (now Linney Hopkins, and one of the lessors of the plaintiff,) and the said James Herbert departed this life, intestate, about ^ year 1740; that his widow afterwards intermarried with a certain William Pritchard, by whom she had issue a daughter named Mary Pritchard, now Mary Housar, by virtue of her marriage with Martin Housar, which said Mary and Martin are lessors of the plaintiff, and, with Linney Hopkins aforesaid, claim the land mentioned in the declaration. That the said Mary, at the time of her first intermarriage with a certain Nathan Offutt, on the 2d February, 1767, was of the age of 16 years, and no more, and that she continued under cover? ture until the month of May, in the year 1777, when the said Nathan Offutt died, and afterwards, some time in the month of June, 1770, the said Mary intermarried with Martin Housar, her present husband. That Linney Hopkins, formerly Linney Herbert, intermarried with a certain James Hopkins some time in the year 1761, which said James departed this life in the year 1780.</p> <p>It is further agreed that Eleanor Herbert, in the deed mentioned, after the death of her husband James Her? bert, continued in the possession of the premises until the time of her death, which happened in the year 1762, when she died intestate, and left issue as aforesaid. That William Herbert, the son, on the 19th of October, 1753, made a deed of bargain and sale with warranty of the land in question to Henry Threlkeld. That afterwards, in the same year, the said William Herbert left this state, and died in the month of April, 1783, intestate, and without issue, in North Carolina. That in the year 1762, after the death of the said Eleanor, the said Henry Threlkeld entered into the premises in virtue of the deed to him, and continued seised and possessed under the said deed until the time of his death in 1783, when he died intestate leaving the defendant, John Threlkeld, his only son and heir at latv, to whom the said land descend»</p> <p>ed, and who hath been ever since the death of his father, and still is, seised and possessed of the same.</p> <p>If, upon this state of the case, the court are of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled, then judgment, to be entered for possession and costs; if not, judgment of nonsuit to be entered.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Orphans Court of Baltimore county.</p> <p>Salathiel Cole, by bis will, executed on the 22nd of August 1822, devised all the rest and residue of his estate, both real and personal, to his mother, Mrs. Artridge Cole, during her single life, and after her death or marriage, then over to his sisters. Part of this residue consisted of two negro women, Mary and Harriet, who, while in possession of Mrs. Cole, the tenant for life, had issue, ten children. Mrs. Artridge Cole, by her will, executed on the 14th of December 1847, after several specific bequests, gave to her daughter, Maranda, negro Abraham, and to her grand-daughter, Mary E. Cole, negro girl Lucy; and then, by the sixth clause of her will, devised to her grand-son, Salathiel Cole, in the words quoted in the opinion of this court. Her property, including the ten negroes, above mentioned, as shown by the inventory, amounted to $4104.41, of which said negroes constituted $2105.</p> <p>The appellees filed their petition in the orphans court, alleging, that Mrs. Cole died intestate as to these ten negroes,' and claiming distribution thereof among the petitioners, as distributee's. The' appellant, who was the residuary legatee' and executor of the will, answered, claiming said negroes under the residuary clause.</p> <p>The appellees took the deposition of two witnesses, one of whom testified, that Mrs. Cole repeatedly declared that she" had no interest in' the increase of Mary and Harriet, but that such increase belonged to her daughters, who were the devisees in remainder under the will of Salathiel Cole. The other witness, who drew the will of the testatrix, stated that she gave the items of her property to him, but failed to enumerate any of said increase’ in the list. The admissibility of these depositions was excepted to by the appellant.</p> <p>The orphans court decided, that there was “ intrinsic evidence enough in the' cause, and sufficient clearness in the' sixth clause of the will, to direct a proper interpretation of the subject in controversy without the aid of other testimony;” that the testatrix died intestate as to said negroes, and decreed' distribution among the petitioners, as prayed. From this decree this appeal was taken by the appellant.</p>

<p>THIS was an appeal from Frederick county court, from a judgment of nonsuit rendered at March term, 1795.</p> <p>Besides a count for money had and received, the plaintiff also declared, that “ whereas a certain Patrick Sim Smith was, on the day and year aforesaid, at the county aforesaid, indebted unto the said Raymer and Beatty in the sum of 101/. current money, and the said P. S. Smith. did, on the 11th of July, 1792, at the .county aforesaid, convey unto the said Anthony Sim and a certain Walter Smith, certain valuable negroes and other personal property, of great value, to wit, of the value of 700/. current money, in trust, to pay such debts of him the said Patrick Sim Smith as they the said A. and W. had become security, and had bound themselves for the payment of j and also for the payment of such other debts of him the said Patrick as could be made appear; in consideration of which premises, and also in consideration that the said Raymer and Beatty would forbear to sue the said Patrick for the debt due as aforesaid, from him to the said Raymer and Beatty, until after March court then next following for the county aforesaid, on the 1st January, 1793, at the county aforesaid, he the said Anthony undertook and promised to the said Raymer and Beatty, that if they the said Raymer and Beatty would forbear to sue the said Patrick for the debt due from the said Patrick to them as aforesaid, until after March court then next following for the county aforesaid, that then he the said A. would pay and satisfy unto them the said R. and B. the debt aforesaid, due as aforesaid from, the said P. unto the said R. and B., or that he the said A. would give his bond to them the said R. and B. for the amount of the said debt due as aforesaid from the said P. unto the said R. and B. ; and the said R. and B. in fact aver, that they did forbear to sue the said P. for the debt due as aforesaid until after March court as aforesaid, and ever after, and that they the said R. and B. had a just debt, and made the same appear, amounting to the sum of 101/. current money as aforesaid, of which the said A. had notice.” The general issue was pleaded. Verdict for the defendant, and judgment of nonsuit.</p> <p>At the trial of the cause in jthe county court, two bills of exceptions were taken, by which it appears,</p> <p>1. That the plaintiff offered to prove that the defendant had sufficient property put into his hands by Patrick Sim Smith for the purpose of paying the plaintiffs this particular debt, for which this suit is brought, and that he the said defendant did actually convert the said property into money, and, after having so converted it into money, promised to the plaintiffs to pay them the aforesaid debt for which this suit is brought, and pray the opinion of the court, whether this evidence was not proper, without a note in writing, to be submitted to the jury 'to support the first count in the plaintiff’s declaration.</p> <p>Upon which prayer the court were of opinion that the above evidence was not proper, without a note in'writing, to be submitted to the jury to support the’ first count in the plaintiff’s declaration. To this opinion the plaintiff excepted.</p> <p>2. The plaintiff offered in evidence to the jury a bill of aale dated the 11th of July, 1792, from Patrick S. Smith, to Anthony Sim and Walter Smith, acknowledged on the same day before a justice of the peace, and recorded on the 30th of July, 1792. The said bill of sale recited that the said Anthony and Walter had become security for him the said Patrick, and bound themselves to the payment of sundry sums of money, for and on his account, &c. and bargained and sold sundry negroes, goods and chattels to the said Anthony and Walter.</p> <p>The plaintiff moreover offered evidence to the jury to prove that the said Patrick S. Smith, in his lifetime, to wit, in 1786, was indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of 100/. current money, for rent in arrear, and due from the said Smith to the plaintiffs. That the defendant, in the year 1793, and some short time before the sitting of the county court of Frederick, in the month of March, in the year 1793, came to the plaintiffs and told them that he had heard that they the plaintiffs intended to sue the said Smith for the debt aforesaid; upon being informed by the plaintiffs that they did intend to do so, the defendant told the plaintiffs that if they would forbear to sue the said Patrick S. Smith until after Frederick county March court then nest ensuing, that he would give them his the said defendant’s bond for the amount of the said debt, or pay them the money. That the plaintiffs did agree to forbear bringing the suit for the time aforesaid, provided the said defendant would agree to give his bond for the said debt, or pay the money to them, which the said defendant did agree to do, and said he was perfectly safe in making such undertaking, for that he had seven or eight hundred pounds worth of property put into his hands by the said P. S. Smith, out of which he could well pay the plaintiffs their debt j which property the plaintiffs offered to prove was put into the hands of the defendant by the said P. S. Smith, for the purpose of paying the debts of the said P. S. Smith. That .the said plaintiffs did forbear to sue the said Smith, for the time aforesaid; that the said Smith died in October, 1793, insolvent, and the plaintiffs never did sue him for this debt.</p> <p>The plaintiffs then prayed the direction of the court to the jury, that if the jury were of opinion that if the seven or eight hundred pounds worth of property, proved by the admission of the defendant to be put into his hands by. the said P. S. Smith, was put there by the said P. S. Smith for the purpose of paying the debts of the said P. S. Smith, that then the above evidence was proper to support the issue in this case on the part of the plaintiffs, although there was no note in writing from the defendant to the plaintiffs ; which direction the court refused to give. The plaintiffs excepted.</p>

This appeal was taken by the appellants from two orders of the court below, the first of which dismissed the petition of the appellants, asking said court to direct plenary proceedings in the application of Richard C. Warford, (the appellee,) for letters of administration pendente lite, on the personal estaté of Rachel Colvin, deceased; the second appointed, on his application, the said Warford such administrator, it being admitted that he was the executor and principal…

THIS was an action of assumpsit for money lent by Mildred EÍ Roberts, in their lifetime, to the defendant ? also, for money had and received, &c. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and non assumpsit infra tres annos. To the first plea the plaintiff joined issue. To the other he, for replication, said, “ that the several sums of money in the declaration arose iipon promises made by the defendant to Mdd: ed Es?

THIS was an appeal from the court of chancery. The record states that a bill was .filed on the 1st of October, 1790, by Moor Falls, (the appellee,) to establish 'she will of Catharine Lux, wife of George Lux, (one of the appellants,) made under a power given her by deeds legally executed on the 18th of September, 1789.

This appeal was taken from an order of the court below,(Martin, C. J.,) dissolving an injunction which had been previously granted upon the bill of the appellants, restraining the appellee, George A. Thurston, as trustee in insolvency of one George S. Greene, from selling certain real estate which had been purchased for $351, by Thomas Sammon, the other appellee,. at sheriff’s sale, under executions against said Greene, and with other property mortgaged by said Sammon to the…

The appeal in this case was taken from two orders of the eourt below, passed in the matter of the insolvent application of Robert Ghiselin. A motion was made by Thomas S. Alexander, one of the appellees, to dismiss the appeal, upon the grounds stated in the opinion of this court, in which also all the facts necessary for an understanding of the question decided on this motion are fully set forth.

The bill in this case was filed by the appellant, on the 25th of August 1850, against the appellee, for an injunction to prevent the latter from occupying a certain piece or plat of land in Cumberland, at the western terminus of the canal. The location of the land in controversy and the allegations of the bill and answer, are sufficiently stated in the opinion of this court.

This appeal is from an order of the orphans court admitting to probate a paper purporting to be the will of John Cramer, executed on the 21st of October 1852.- By this paper the testator manumitted two of his servants, and devised to his brother Amos Cramer, and his wife and their two children, one dollar each, that being the “full amount I wish them to have of my estate.” He then devised “all his property, real, personal and mixed, except my horse Davy, unto Margaret Smeltz…

<p>THIS was a petition for freedom. It was admitted that the petitioner was descended from Negro Mary, imported many years ago into this country from Madagascar; and the question was, whether she was entitled to her freedom ?</p>

THIS was an appeal from the county court of Frederick. By the record it appears that Hugh Young, in his lifetime, brought an action of trover in the county court against Schnertzelliov final settlement certificates amounting to 166 dollars.

This appeal was taken by the appellants, (the defendants below,) from an order of the county court, passed on the 16th of November 1849, finally ratifying and confirming the auditor’s account of the 9th of March 1848, which distributed the proceeds of sale, and overruling their exceptions thereto.

THIS was an ejectment for lot No. 14. in the city of Baltimore, A case stated was submitted to the court for their opinion, by which, It is admitted that yacob F. Brown, late of Baltimore county, deceased, was seised in fee of the premises mentioned in the declaration, and that he died so seised thereof, and that Mary Magdalen Constable, the wife of Thomas Constable, and E‘ zabeth Margaret Shaffer, wife of Frederick Shaffer, are heirs at law of yacob Brown.

IN this case an attachment on warrant issued in virtue of the act of If95, c. 56. to Prince George’s county, and a duplicate thereof to Frederick county. The attachment to Prince George’s was laid on certain property in the district of Columbia, and returned as the lands and tenements of Robert Morris. The attachment to Frederick was laid on property in Monocasy manor, and also returned to be the lands and. tenements of Robert Morris.

EJECTMENT for two tracts of land called The Land of Strife, and Cole's Struggle, both lying in Baltimore county. The defendant took defence upon plats, and judgment was entere-d against the casual ejector for all lands undefended, and the verdict was for the plaintiff, for the lands for which defence was taken, and judgment thereupon.

THIS was an ejectment for a tract of land called Good Hope, lying in Washington county. Defence was taken on plots. Held: occupied and claimed land dependent upon the outlines of the said tract called The Resurvey on Hills, Dales and Vineyard, and offered to prove that by the location of the said land by the defendant, on the plots in the cause, the witness would get more land and of better quality than by the plaintiff’s location thereof.

THIS was an ejectment for an undivided moiety of a tract of land called Shaw's Fancy; also of an undivided moiety of Shaw's Delight, and also of Shaw's Privilege, all lying in Baltimore county. At the trial of the cause three bills of exceptions were taken.

THIS was an action of debt upon an administration bond. Two bills of exceptions were taken at the trial of the cause. 1. The plaintiff offered in evidence to the jury a commission, duly and regularly issued in this cause, from this court, to certain persons in Philadelphia, therein named commissioners, and the return of the execution thereof, with the depositions taken under it.

THIS was an action of assault and battery. The defendant pleaded son assault demesne, to which the plaintiff replied de injuria sua propria, &c. Issue was joined, and the jury sworn.

EJECTMENT .for part of a trie* of land ealledKnave’s Disappointment, known and distinguished by the numbers, 281. 55. and 87. on a plat of that part of Knave’s Disappointment called Beatty and Hawkins’ Addition to George Tozun, situate in Montgomery county. Three bills of exceptions were taken at the trial of this cause. 1st exception.