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

HARRIS VS. SANGSTONS. 397
ing with the rights of Mackall Harris, the complainant, we should
not be influenced by the agreement between Alexander Harris
and the Sangstons. The bill, however, alleges that the money
was advanced by them at the request of Alexander Harris, and
that at the time of such advance and execution of the deed t(
them, they all agreed to reconvey the land to the complainant
on payment to them of said sum of money and interest. This
allegation is positively denied as has been mentioned, and a dif-
ferent and much more probable version of the transaction given.
What then is the case? The Sangstons having procured a title
to this property under an execution against Alexander Harris.
issued upon a judgment for a balance of the purchase money
due his vendor, and having made sale thereof to Dr. Dare, are
restrained by the injunction of this court from parting with the
bonds or notes of Dare to them, upon the ground that when
they so procured the title, they agreed to hold it merely as
security for the sum actually advanced at the time, and that
upon the repayment of such advance, they would convey the
property to the complainant, a purchaser from Alexander Har-
ris. The defendants, the Sangstons, deny this statement, and
aver that they advanced the money for a very different purpose,
to wit, to secure a large debt due them from Alexander Har-
ris. Why then should the injunction be continued ? If their
answer is true, and being responsive, it must upon this motion
be taken as true, they are clearly entitled to enjoy the benefit
of their purchase without the let or hindrance of this court.
The injunction, therefore, must be dissolved.
A. RANDALL, for Complainant.
THOS. G. PRATT, for Defendants.
33*

  		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 397   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