Shepherd v. Shepherd
High Court of Chancery of Maryland
[The complainant filed his bill in this court, on the 9th of October, 1847, stating that his mother was in her lifetime seized and possessed of a tract of land in Anne Arundel county, containing about sixty-nine acres, upon which he (complainant) has resided for the last four years ; and that his father, by his will, had devised the same to him in fee, under the erroneous impression that he was the fee-simple owner thereof, and had a right to devise it away.
Read the full summary
[The complainant filed his bill in this court, on the 9th of October, 1847, stating that his mother was in her lifetime seized and possessed of a tract of land in Anne Arundel county, containing about sixty-nine acres, upon which he (complainant) has resided for the last four years ; and that his father, by his will, had devised the same to him in fee, under the erroneous impression that he was the fee-simple owner thereof, and had a right to devise it away. The complainant stated that he had asserted no claim to the land under this devise, but that his mother being anxious that he should…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor:
This is a bill for the specific performance of a parol contract in relation to lands, and of course the plaintiff can only succeed upon the ground of a part execution of the agreement; and the acts done in part performance, must not only be referrible exclusively to the contract set up in the bill, but the contract must itself be established by evidence — clear, definite and unequivocal in its terms. Such is the current of all the authorities upon this branch of the jurisdiction of courts of equity. 2 Story Eq., section 762. Wingate vs. Dail, 2 H. and J., 76.
It was said by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Phillips v. ThompsonNew York Court of Chancery · 1814
3Cited by3 opinions
- Winter v. GoebnerColorado Court of Appeals · 1892
- Kimball v. StatlerArizona Supreme Court · 1918
- Winter v. GoebnerColorado Court of Appeals · 1892