clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 136   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

136 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
relief would have been originally given upon the ground of
constructive trust, it is refused to the party, who, after long
acquiescence, comes into a court of equity to seek relief. The
discountenance which courts of equity give to stale and anti-
quated demands for the peace of society, by refusing to inter-
fere, where there has been gross laches in prosecuting rights,
or long acquiescence in the assertion of adverse rights, is stated
with great clearness by Mr. Justice Story, in the 2d vol. of his
Commentaries on Equity, section 1520. And the doctrine so
stated, is placed beyond all question by the authorities, collect-
ed in the note to that section; see also 1 Howard, 189. Now,
in this case, the assertion of an adverse right by the sale of this
property, was in the year 1812, in which there has been an
acquiescence until 1845, when this present bill was filed, or at
least until July of that year, the date of the letter of the com-
plainant's solicitor to the defendants, being a period of thirty-
three years. The assertion of the hostile right by the defendant
was flagrant and unqualified. It was by an actual sale of the
property, and the acquiescence on the other side, was more
than passive; for the proof shows that the widow and admin-
istratrix of Gibbons, gave up the possession which she had
held to that time. It is true the female complainant in this
case was at that period a minor; but her minority terminated
in the year 1831, and she did not exhibit her bill until the year
1845, being an interval of fourteen years, for which no excuse
is given.
It seems to me, therefore, that upon the principle so ex-
plicitly laid down in the books, and so essential for the peace of
society, that the complainant cannot have relief. The bill must
therefore be dismissed.
JOHN GLENN, S. T. WALLIS and T. G. PRATT for Com-
plainants.
JOHN J. LLOYD, T. P. SCOTT and J. V. L. MCMAHON for
defendants.

 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 136   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives