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

378 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
If the complainant had permitted the power which he had
given the defendant to stand unrevoked, and in the exercise of
the authority thus confided to him, he had acted precipitately
or unwisely, or at all events had attempted to make profit to
himself in the discharge of his trust, there can be no doubt a
court of equity would have afforded redress to the injured par-
ty. But when this authority was withdrawn, and the power
entrusted to another party, it would certainly be a hard measure
of justice to hold the person from whom the power was taken
responsible for the conduct of him to whom it was given.
Winter & Latimer were the agents of the plaintiff in making
this sale, and they, knowing who was the purchaser, received
the purchase money from the auctioneer employed by them
without objection or complaint. This appears from the evidence
of the auctioneer, and the entries upon his books returned with
the commission.
I cannot conceive that the defendant should or can, with any
propriety, be regarded as the complainant's agent in selling
this vessel, and, therefore, it appears to me there is no principle
of law which precluded him from purchasing. I am also quite
satisfied that if he had not attended the sale and bid, she would
have sold for less than he gave for her, thus inflicting an injury
upon himself as well as upon the complainant. Surely there can
be no rule of law which would require him to stand by and permit
his own property to be sacrificed under such circumstances.
It is no answer to say, that he might have bid on account of
himself and the complainant to prevent a sacrifice. He had no
authority from the plaintiff to do so, and might at the election
of the latter been held to his bid.
The counsel for the complainant has pressed with much force
the circumstances that the vessel was in bad repute in the place
of sale, and that the respondent is responsible to some extent
for this. But I do not find in the evidence anything to lead to
a suspicion that the defendant contributed to or even knew of
the reports in circulation injurious to the character of the ves-
sel, and, therefore, he cannot be affected by their existence. It
is very certain that but for the defendant's going to the place

  		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 378   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