Isaac v. Clarke
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Prince George’s County Court. This was an action of ejectment, commenced on the 25th March, 1835, to recover all those tracts of land called <{Burgess’ Delight,” “ Clarke’s Fancy,” and uIlickory Thicket.” The date of the demise was 1st January, 1835. The tenant appeared, pleaded not guilty, and took defence on warrant. 1 st Exception.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Prince George’s County Court. This was an action of ejectment, commenced on the 25th March, 1835, to recover all those tracts of land called <{Burgess’ Delight,” “ Clarke’s Fancy,” and uIlickory Thicket.” The date of the demise was 1st January, 1835. The tenant appeared, pleaded not guilty, and took defence on warrant. 1 st Exception. During the trial of this cause, after the jury were empanneled, and before the case was argued to the jury, and before the several bills of exceptions taken in this case were signed by the court, it was discoverer] for the first time by the…
1Opinion of the CourtChambers, J.
Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the competency of the juror was restored by his conveyance of all his interest in the property in contest. In this opinion, however, the court is not unanimous. The first exception is therefore affirmed.
We think the instruction given in the second exception was erroneous. A sale made by a sheriff to his own agent is not necessarily void at law, but voidable for fraud in fact. The jury alone is the proper tribunal to pronounce upon the fact of fraud, and the circumstance that the purchaser is an agent of the sheriff will be properly regarded with…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Duff v. DuffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Tizer v. TizerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1932
- Church v. SheltonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1855
- Maulsby v. ScarboroughCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1940
- Judik v. CraneCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1895
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.