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

88 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
of doing so; and if these parties are not permitted to avoid it,
then it follows that the settlement must stand, and all the con-
sequences resulting from regarding it as a valid instrument
must ensue.
These parties, by their exceptions filed on the I5th Novem-
ber, 1839, contest the validity of the settlement, and by their
petition, filed on the 30th September, 1846, the fund being still
under the control of the court, expressly disaffirm the deed,
and claim the fund in opposition to it. And it is and must be
conceded, that George B. Stephenson, the surviving husband
of Augusta, and father of her infant child, can have no right to
the money now in controversy, unless the deed in question
is to be regarded as a valid and operative instrument. If it
be not, then, as this estate descended to this infant child on
the part of the mother, it must, upon her death, go to the rela-
tions on the part of the mother, (who are the exceptants,) to
the exclusion of the father, according to the provisions of the
first section of the act of 1820, ch. 191.
It can only be by considering the deed valid, and that the
child takes as a purchaser under it, that the father can claim—
the child, upon that hypothesis, constituting a new root or
stock of inheritance, and the father, under the circumstances
of the case, by the terms of the same act, taking as heir to his
child.
These exceptants are privies in blood to the mother and the
child; and standing in that relation they seem to have a clear
right to set aside the deed in question—the rule being that the
infant himself, or his representatives, privies in blood, can avoid
a voidable conveyance made by the infant. Whittington's
Case, 8 Rep., 84. .
If the infant does not live to confirm or adopt, at full age,
the feoffment which he made during his minority, it may be
set aside by persons who are privy to him in blood, but not by
a person who is privy in estate only. McPherson on In-
fants, 465.
My opinion, therefore, is, that viewing this settlement as one
of those voidable acts, which must be disaffirmed in order to

  		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 88   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