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 67   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

PEYTON VS. AYRES ET AL. 67
tinguish all right on his part, to any allowance out of the pro-
ceeds of sale for the annuity, which might accrue after the day
of sale. It would certainly be a thing to be regretted, if such
should be the case; because nothing can be clearer than that
the complainant had a right to file his bill for a sale, upon the
default of the mortgagors to pay the annuity as it became due;
and it would be a reproach to our system of jurisprudence, if
he must, in the exercise of this unquestioned right, forfeit all
security for future payments. The authorities are, I think, the
other way, and show very clearly, that whilst the mortgagors
may prevent a foreclosure or sale, in the case of a mortgage
payable by instalments, or when interest is due but not the
principal, by paying the sum due; yet if he fails to do so, a
sale will be decreed, of so much of the property as will pay the
amount due, when the decree will stand as a security for the
other instalments as they may become due; or if the property
cannot be conveniently or safely sold in parcels, it may be dis-
posed of entire, and the whole debt paid, with such rebate of
interest on the sums not due, as may be just and equitable.
This I understand to be the settled doctrine upon the subject,
and undoubtedly meets the justice of the case. Salmon, vs.
dagett, 3 Bland, 179. Binckerhoof vs. Thallhimer, 2 Johns.
Ch. R.) 486. Campbell et al. vs. Macomb et al., 4 i6.
534. This exception, therefore, cannot be sustained.
The remaining question relates to the propriety of the rule
adopted by the Auditor for ascertaining the present value of the
annuity, payable to the complainant during the life of Mrs.
Mary Ayres. In the account A, he has assigned to the com-
plainant so much of the proceeds of the sales as would, accord-
ing to Dr. Price's Northampton Tables, be sufficient to purchase
such an annuity; though, as he observes, there is no evidence
that the sum so assigned would be sufficient for the purpose.
These tables were formed by Dr. Price, from bills of mortal-
ity, kept in the parish of All Saints, in the town of Northamp-
ton, in England, from the years 1735 to 1780; but it seems to
be conceded, they would not now, in England, furnish a
safe guide to follow, in estimating the present value of a life

  		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 67   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