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 4, Page 377   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

PETERS VS. SPEIGHTS. 377
the cause was remanded for further proceedings by the Court
of Appeals, and this proof, with all the proceedings, has been
carefully considered, and the conclusion to which I have come
is, that under all the circumstances of the case, the relation in
which the parties stood at the period of the sale of the vessel,
in August, 1850, did not preclude the defendant from becoming
the purchaser of the vessel.
It is quite evident from the second letter of the defendant,
under date the 15th of August, 1850, that it was written under
high excitement, and there are expressions in it indicative of
a determination to sell the vessel at once at any price. But in
my opinion it is equally clear, from the proof now in the cause,
that Messrs. Winter & Latimer, the parties who held the letter
of attorney from the complainant to sell his interest in her,
wore quite as much if not more to blame (if blame be imputable
to any one) than the defendant, for bringing her into market
at the time and in the mode in which she was sold.
That they could have controlled the sale at that time is man-
ifest, and though Latimer in his proof speaks of the time and
mode selected as injudicious, there is no intimation anywhere
that they communicated their opinion upon the subject to the
defendant. When the defendant left the port of Baltimore,
he held a power of attorney from the complainant to dispose of
his interest in the vessel. After his departure, from some un-
explained cause, the complainant chose to delegate this authority
to Mr. Lippincott, who transferred the power to Winter & Lat-
imer, and the evidence of Mr. Cannon, the auctioneer who made
the sale, is explicit that it was made by order of that firm.
There can certainly be no doubt that the defendant not only
concurred in but pressed the sale on, but I am far from think-
ing that all the consequences resulting from disposing of the
vessel at that time, and in the mode selected, should be visited
upon him, when it is undeniable that the parties who held me
letter of attorney of the complainant never intimated to him a
doubt of the propriety of disposing of the property in that way,
and at that time, but, on the contrary, gave the auctioneer orders
to make it.

  		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 4, Page 377   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