Maryland State Archives

The purchasing a horse at a public market established by law for the sale of horses, &c. does not entitle the purchaser to hold the horse against the claim of the true owner. There is no market overt in this state.

Where a mother, as the natural guardian of her infant children, who were under the age of 14 years, hired a slave belonging to them, to a sea captain, to perform a voyage on wages, the slave to be returned, &c. and the vessel being sold at the port to which she sailed, by her owners, the slave was put by the captain on board of another vessel bound home, and furnished with provisions for the voyage, but never returned home In an action of trover by the children, prosecuting by their prochein amy, against the captain, for the value of the slave--Held, that the action was well brought.

Defendant pleaded usury. The court held that the trial court properly left it to the jury to decide whether the transaction in question was a real sale or whether it was only colorable to hide an usurious loan. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court and held that the jury properly found for plaintiff. As to whether the stipulation to repay the principal in money was actually a loan, the court held that if the principal was secured and the interest reserve was more than six percent, it constituted usury. The jury found the intention to negotiate a loan and the court held that it would not disturb the jury's finding.

Appeallate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Tyson v. Rickard, 1810, June Term, no. 35, p. 136 [MSA S414-3, 1/66/14/22].

COURT OF APPEALS (Judgments) Tyson v. Rickard, 1810, June Term, no. 35 [MSA S382-163, 1/63/6/44].

The plaintiff, (the appellant,) at the trial, read in evidence a policy of insurance, executed to him by the defendants, under their common seal, on the 5th of June 1806, in the usual form, from Baltimore to Bourdeaux, upon all kinds of lawful goods and merchandize, laden or to be laden, on board the schooner Venus, at the rate of 4 pr. ct. to the amount of $ 20,000, warranted to be American property, proof of which, in case of need, to be required in the United States only. He also gave in evidence, that on the 28th of June 1806, he shipped on board the Venus, at the port of Baltimore, certain goods and merchandizes then belonging to him, viz. 44 hogsheads of clayed sugar, 41 hogsheads brown sugar, 23 barrels of clayed sugar, 101 bags Carracas cocoa, and 308 bags of cotton, which were accompanied by a manifest, bills of lading, and proof of property, in due and regular form. That at the time of making of the policy and shipment, the plaintiff was a citizen of the U. S. residing in Baltimore. That the schooner Venus did regularly clear out on her said voyage from Baltimore to Bourdeaux, on the 2d of July 1806, and sailed on the 7th, with the above mentioned goods, papers and documents, on board, and in the regular prosecution of her said voyage she was, on the 24th of July 1806, captured on the high seas by a British sloop of war, and carried into Halifux in Nova Scotia, where the goods were libelled as prize, and condemned as such on the 9th of September 1806, in the vice admiralty court there, and thereby totally lost to the plaintiff.

Judges: Jeremiah Townley Chase; John Johnson; John Buchanan.

Attorneys: Walter Dorsey and Robert Goodloe Harper for Appellant; Luther Martin, William Pinkney, and John Purviance for Appellees.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Carrere v. The Union Insurance Company of Maryland, 1813, December Term, no. 24 [MSA S414-5, 1/66/14/23].

COURT OF APPEALS (Notes on Arguments and Opinions, Western Shore) Carrere v. The Union Insurance Company of Maryland, 1813, December Term, no. 24, p. 215-236 [MSA S428-5, 1/67/6/20].

COURT OF APPEALS (Judgments, Western Shore) Carrere v. The Union Insurance Company of Maryland, 1813, December Term, no. 24 [MSA S382-30, 1/62/7/40].

The insurer issued a policy on the insured's ship. The ship was captured by a British vessel of war. The insured abandoned the ship to the insurer, filed a claim for a total loss, and the insurer paid him. The insurer's agent received money from the British for the freight awarded on an appeal to the high court of appeals in Great Britain. On appeal, the court held that at the time of the abandonment for a total loss, all the insured's interest in the ship ceased and the right of the insurer commenced. The court found that the insured made his election to take that which was substituted by mutual consent as an equivalent for the ship, and the insurers gave its assent to it by its acceptance. Further, the court ruled that the freight was susceptible of apportionment, and therefore the insured was entitled to all the emoluments or earnings of the ship anterior to the capture to be adjusted by a jury on such evidence that was legally admissible. The court indicated that the action for money had and received was an equitable action, and the insured could resort to and prove all equitable circumstances incident to the case. OUTCOME: The court reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of the insurer and awarded a procedendo.

Judges: Jeremiah Townley Chase; John Johnson; John Buchanan; Richard Tilghman Earle.

Attorneys: Robert Goodloe Harper and John Purviance for Appellant; William Pinkney and Walter Dorsey for Appellees.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Kennedy v. The Baltimore Insurance Company, 1813, December Term, no. 50 [MSA S414-6, 1/66/14/24].

COURT OF APPEALS (Judgments, Western Shore) Kennedy v. The Baltimore Insurance Company, 1813, December Term, no. 50 [MSA S382-91, 1/62/11/20].

The suppliers alleged that the customer agreed to accept all the brandy transported on a certain ship and agreed to provide the suppliers with a note upon delivery of the brandy. The customer contended that the contract was rescinded when the suppliers took possession of the brandy in the customer's warehouse. The customers also contended that there was a variation between the complaint and the proof. The court held that the contract was not rescinded when the suppliers removed the brandy from the customer's warehouse and exposed it to sale at public auction because the customer refused to receive the brandy, and the brandy remained the property of the suppliers, who had a right to dispose of it as they pleased. The court held that a letter from the suppliers and an answer from the customer taken together formed a contract that stated their intention to except from their agreement certain cogniac. The court held that the suppliers failed to prove the contract because the proof was for an agreement for whatever brandy the suppliers might have had on board the ship. The court stated that there was in evident variance between the contract declared on and that given in evidence.

Judges: John Johnson; John Buchanan; Richard Tilghman Earle.

Attorneys: Walter Dorsey, Robert Goodloe Harper, and William H. Winder for Appellant; Luther Martin, William Pinkney, and John Purviance for Appellees.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Walsh v. Gilmor, et al., 1813, December Term, no. 21 [MSA S414-6, 1/66/14/24].

COURT OF APPEALS (Notes on Arguments and Opinions, Western Shore) Walsh v. Gilmor, et al., 1813, December Term, no. 21, p. 177-198 [MSA S428-5, 1/67/6/20].

COURT OF APPEALS (Judgments, Western Shore) Walsh v. Gilmor, et al., 1813, December Term, no. 21 [MSA S382-176, 1/62/7/29].

This was a petition for freedom. At the trial the petitioner, (now appellee,) produced a witness, who proved that John Haney, the brother of the defendant, (now appellant,) wrote a letter to him from St. Mary's county in this state, where he resided, and sent it by the petitioner, who was then living in Virginia, where he was born and raised, and by whom it was delivered to the witness in the city of Baltimore, where the witness resided, sometime in the month of February 1810, and shortly after the said letter was written. The letter contained a request that the witness would keep the petitioner until he, John Haney, or his brother Samuel Haney, should arrive in Baltimore; and it also stated, that the petitioner was the property of his said brother, who was under age, and that he was the guardian of his said brother. That accordingly the witness did keep the petitioner in his service from that time for about two months and an half, when the defendant arrived in Baltimore from St. Mary's county, where he was bound in 1803 by his father, for seven years, to learn the business of a pilot, and where he then lived.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Haney v. Waddle, 1815, May Term, no. 62 [MSA S414-6, 1/66/14/24].

COURT OF APPEALS (Judgments, Western Shore) Haney v. Waddle, 1815, May Term, no. 62 [MSA S382-74, 1/62/10/22].

Appellate Judges: Jeremiah Townley Chase; John Johnson John Buchanan; Richard Tilghman Earle; William Bond Martin.

Appellate Attorneys: William H. Winder (appellant); Walter Dorsey (appellee)

Trial Court Judges: Joseph Hopper Nicholson; Zebulon Hollingsworth; Thomas Jones

Trial Court Attorneys: Walter Dorsey (Waddle); William H. Winder (Haney); Theodorick Bland (Haney)

John Levant, a married man, being a native and resident of the Island of Saint Domingo, removed from that place in July 1793, flying from disturbances which then existed there, endangering the lives and property of the inhabitants, and brought with him into this state three negroes, of whom the petitioner, (now appellee,) is one, whom he then and before owned as a slave. That in May 1794, he sold the petitioner, as a slave, to William Clemm, who sold him as such to the defendant, (the appellant.) That said Levant arrived at Baltimore in August 1793, and continued to reside there until sometime in 1796, when he returned to the West Indies. The defendant thereupon prayed the direction of the court to the jury, that if they believed the facts, the petitioner was not entitled to his freedom. This opinion the Court, [Scott, Ch. J. ] refused to give; but directed the jury, that upon these facts the petitioner was free. The defendant excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed to this court, where the case was argued.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Fulton v. Lewis, 1815, May Term, no. 79 [MSA S414-6, 1/66/14/24].
Writ of Ca. Sa. issued; continued until June, 1819. See COURT OF APPEALS (Docket, Western Shore) John Lewis, use of Thomas Harwood and Thomas Harris v. David Fulton, 1819, Judicials, no. 48 [MSA S414-7, 1/66/14/25].

COURT OF APPEALS (Judgments, Western Shore) Fulton v. Lewis, 1815, May Term, no. 79 [MSA S382-54, 1/62/9/14].

Appellate Judges: Jeremiah Townley Chase; John Johnson; John Buchanan; Richard Tilghman Earle; William Bond Martin; Joseph Hopper Nicholson.

Appellate Attorneys: Elias Glenn and Thomas Kell for Appellant; John Montgomery, Thomas Jennings and John Scott, Jr for Appellee.

Trial Court Judges: John Scott; George P. Presbury;

Trial Court Attorneys: John Scott, Jr. (Lewis); Elias Glenn (Fulton)

The insurer executed an insurance policy on cargo owned by the insured. The cargo was lost when a British ship captured the ship on which it was transported. The insured made a claim against the policy for the lost cargo. In response, the insurer proffered several notes that had been executed to it by the insured. It sought a set off against the policy for the amount. The trial court excluded the notes because the policy was "open"--i.e., the amount of the coverage was the value of the cargo, which had to be proven by the insured. The trial court entered judgment for the insured and the insurer sought review. The court reversed the judgment and awarded a procedendo. The court acknowledged that the policy was an open one and that the value of the cargo had to be proven. However, the court held that the uncertain nature of the coverage did not preclude the insurer from offering the notes into evidence in order to procure a set off. The court wrote that enlarging the description of the claims against which set offs and discounts were admissible advanced the object and policy of the law. This was especially so when, as here, the insurer was required to pay the assignees of the policy. OUTCOME: The court reversed a judgment for the insured in an action to recover payment from the insurer. A procedendo was awarded.

Judges: Jeremiah Townley Chase; John Johnson; John Buchanan; Richard Tilghman Earle; William Bond Martin.

Attorneys: William Pinkney for Appellants; Robert Goodloe Harper and William H. Winder for Appellee.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) The Baltimore Insurance Company v. M'Fadon, 1815, December Term, no. 58 [MSA S414-6, 1/66/14/24].

COURT OF APPEALS (Judgments, Western Shore) The Baltimore Insurance Company v. M'Fadon, 1815, December Term, no. 58 [MSA S382-9, 1/62/6/24].

W. by letter, in answer to an inquiry made of him by P. on what terms bills on Batavia to the amount of $ 30,000, could be had at Amsterdam. &c. stated, that "bills on Batavia night be purchased to the amount of f.75,000, or $ 30,000, at 48 per rix dollar of 2 1-2 a piece, and 10 or 12 pr. et. discount, to be paid immediately"--Held, by Baltimore county court, that the construction of the answer to the letter was, that an investment of 75,000 florins, Holland currency, or $ 30,000, money of the U. S. might be made in bills on Batavia, drawn according to the usual course of trade, in rix dollars; that for each rix dollar, for which the bills should be drawn, the purchaser would have to pay 48 stivers, Holland currency; and the value of the rix dollar, thus drawn for, was 2 1 2 florins Holland currency.That court also held, that if W was authorized by P, and undertook to purchase bills according to the terms stated in the above answer, and none other, he was obliged to purchase according to those terms or not to have purchased at all.That court being divided in opinion, (only two judges present,) refused the defendants' prayer to direct the jury that W was not bound by his undertaking to procure bills which would produce in Batavia 30,000 Spanish dollars. On appeal--Held, that the prayer ought to have been rejected.

Judges: John Johnson; John Buchanan; Richard Tilghman Earle; William Bond Martin.

Attorneys: Luther Martin and William Pinkney for Appellants; Walter Dorsey and Robert Goodloe Harper for Appellees.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Smith, et al. v. Gilmor, at al., 1816, June Term, no. 46 [MSA S414-6, 1/66/14/24].

COURT OF APPEALS (Notes on Arguments and Opinions, Western Shore) Smith, et al. v. Gilmor, at al., 1816, June Term, no. 46, p. 449-452 [MSA S428-6, 1/67/6/20].

COURT OF APPEALS (Judgments, Western Shore) Smith, et al. v. Gilmor, at al., 1816, June Term, no. 46, [MSA S382-145, 1/62/14/35].

The act of congress of the 13th of June 1798, ch. 70, interdicted commerce with "any port or place within the territory of the French republic, or the dependencies thereof, or with any place in the West Indies, or elsewhere, under the acknowledged government of France." The defence set up by the defendant in the court below was, that the voyages were illegal, and that although the amount in dispute was received by him as the agent of the plaintiffs, yet that he had a right to retain it, because the plaintiffs could not recover the proceeds of an illegal transaction

Judges: John Buchanan; Richard Tilghman Earle; John Johnson; William Bond Martin.

Attorneys: Luther Martin, William H. Winder and ____ Mercer for appellants; Robert Goodloe Harper for appellee.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket, Western Shore) Stewart, et al. v. M'Intosh, 1816, June Term, no. 44 [MS S414-6, 1/66/14/24].

COURT OF APPEALS (Notes on Arguments and Opinions, Western Shore) Stewart, et al. v. M'Intosh, 1816, June Term, no. 44 [MSA S428-6, 1/67/6/20].

COURT OF APPEALS (Judgments, Western Shore) Stewart, et al. v. M'Intosh, 1816, June Term, no. 44 [MSA S382-145, 1/62/14/35].

Plaintiff charged fraud against defendant in association with a shipment. On review, the court reversed the judgment in plaintiff's favor. In reaching its conclusion, the court held that an alteration in an agreement regarding cargo on a ship was made to allow defendant to enter the inward cargo because the other claimant to the such cargo had become insolvent and absconded. The court held that the agreement was not entered to fraudulently.

Judges: Jeremiah Townley Chase; John Johnson; John Buchanan; Richard Tilghman Earle; WWilliam Bond Martin.

Attorneys: Thomas Beale Dorsey, Luther Martin and Samuel Moale for Appellant; William H. Winder and George Winchester for Appellee.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Karthaus v. Owings, 1817, June Term, no. 122 [MSA S414-6, 1/66/14/24].

COURT OF APPEALS (Notes on Arguments and Opinions, Western Shore) Karthaus v. Owings, 1817, June Term, no. 122, p. 93-97 [MSA S428-7, 1/67/6/21].

Trial Court Records:

CHANCERY COURT (Chancery Papers) Peter A. Karthaus vs. James Owings, 1812, MdHR 17,898-2978 [MSA S512-3061, 1/36/3/7].

Embargo-- the voyage provided for by the charter party, and proved by the evidence stated in the bill of exceptions, was illegal and cannot be enforced

The surviving partner and a decedent formed a partnership. The French government awarded a sum of money to the partnership. The agent received the money on behalf of the partnership. The decedent died. The surviving partner filed an action of assumpsit against the agent to recover the money. The agent claimed that the action was barred by the act of limitations. The surviving partner asserted that the action was not time-barred because three years before he filed the action the agent made a promise to the surviving partner and the decedent to pay the debt. The trial court entered a judgment for the surviving partner. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court held that a debtor's acknowledgment of a debt took a creditor's claim against him out of the act of limitations. The court determined that the fact that the promise was made to both partners and the decedent died thereafter was irrelevant because the surviving partner was entitled to collect the debts due to the partnership. The court ruled that the surviving partner's action was not barred by the act of limitations.

Judges: Jeremiah Townley Chase; John Johnson, William Bond Martin.

Attorneys: Nathaniel Williams and William Pinkney for Appellant; Robert Goodloe Harper, William H. Winder, and Samuel Smith for Appellee.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket, Western Shore) Barney v. Smith, 1819, June Term, no. 2, p. 1 [MSA S414-7, 1/66/14/25].

COURT OF APPEALS (Judgments, Western Shore) Barney v. Smith, 1819, June Term, no. 2 [MSA S382-11, 1/62/6/26].

COURT OF APPEALS (Notes on Arguments, Western Shore) Barney v. Smith, 1819, June Term, no. 2, p. 1-9 [MSA S427-6, 1/67/6/12].

COURT OF APPEALS (Notes on Arguments and Opinions, Western Shore) Barney v. Smith, 1819, June Term, no. 2, p. 1-7 [MSA S428-8, 1/67/6/21].

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellants, heirs of a deceased slave owner, sought review of the decision of the Court of Chancery (Maryland), which entered a judgment in favor of appellee slaves in their action to record a deed of manumission, which the slaves argued was executed by the deceased slave owner.

OVERVIEW: The slaves brought an action against the heirs of a deceased slave owner, in which the slaves alleged that they had been freed by a deed of manumission from the owner. The slaves sought an order of the chancery court to record the deed of manumission. The chancery court granted the slaves' request. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment of the chancery court. The court held that 1785 Md. Laws ch. 72, § 11 and 1792 Md. Laws ch. 41, § 3, which expanded the jurisdiction of the chancery courts to grant equitable relief for unrecorded deeds, applied only to deeds involving real estate. The statutes were not intended to give new relief in cases where no remedy had previously existed. The court noted that, in order to grant any rights at all, a deed of manumission had to be filed within six months of the date it was executed. The court ruled that the slave owner could have, within those six months, chosen to rescind the deed or simply refused to record it. By failing to do so, the owner left the slaves without any recourse.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket, Western Shore) John Wickes v. Araminta Chew, et al., 1819, December Term, case no. 20, MdHR 604 [MSA S414-7, 1/66/14/025].

COURT OF APPEALS (Notes on Arguments, Western Shore) John Wickes v. Araminta Chew, et al., 1819, December Term, case no. 20, pp. 225-233 [MSA S427-6, 1/67/06/012].

Trial Court Records:

CHANCERY COURT (Chancery Papers) Araminta Chew, Letty Chew, Henry Chew, Michael Chew, Frank Chew, Ralph James, Judea James, Henry James, Polly James, and Samuel James. AA. Petition to record manumissions for petitioners, 1816, MdHR 17,898-1005 [MSA S512-1047, 1/36/1/19].

CHANCERY COURT (Chancery Record) Araminta Chew, et al., 1816, Liber 106, p. 486-492, MdHR 17,819-1[MSA S517-123, 1/35/03/013].

Appellate Judges: John Buchanan; Richard Tilghman Earle; John Johnson; Walter Dorsey

Appellate Attorneys: Alexander Contee Magruder (Appellant); John Stephen (Appellant); James Boyle (Appellant); Nicholas Brewer (Appellee)

Trial Court Judge: Chancellor William Kilty

Trial Court Attorneys: Alexander Contee Magruder (Wickes, et al.); Nicholas Brewer (Chew)