Legal Opinion

Wilhelm v. Lee

High Court of Chancery of Maryland

Decided July 15, 1849PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor :

The agreement submitting this case, presents two questions. The first is, whether a mortgagee, who has recovered judgments at law for his debt, upon one of which an appeal has been taken, and is now pending in the Court of Appeals, the other remaining unsatisfied in the County Court, can maintain a bill in equity for a foreclosure, and sale of the mortgaged premises. And, secondly, whether a mortgagee who has simply instituted a suit at law, but recovered no judgment, is entitled in this court to such a decree.

*323The rule appears to be perfectly well settled, that a mortgagee may…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Dunkley v. Van BurenNew York Court of Chancery · 1818
  2. Berger v. HiesterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
  3. Jones v. CondeNew York Court of Chancery · 1822
  4. Pierce v. PotterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
  5. Richardson v. StillingerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1842

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Young v. VailNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Wellington Co. v. ShakibaCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2008
  3. Rasst v. MorrisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1918
  4. Austraw v. DietzCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1945
  5. Parks v. SkipperCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1933

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API