Warfield v. Banks
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Chancery. On the 17th September 1833, Alfred Warfield filed his bill in Chancery, alleging, that a certain Samuel Banks and the complainant, were seized in fee as tenants in common, of a tract of land called Bunker’s Hill Fortifiedthat complainant is desirous of holding his part of said tract in severalty, and has applied to the said Samuel Banks to make a friendly partition thereof between themselves — that this has been refused by said Banks, who pretends that…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Chancery. On the 17th September 1833, Alfred Warfield filed his bill in Chancery, alleging, that a certain Samuel Banks and the complainant, were seized in fee as tenants in common, of a tract of land called Bunker’s Hill Fortifiedthat complainant is desirous of holding his part of said tract in severalty, and has applied to the said Samuel Banks to make a friendly partition thereof between themselves — that this has been refused by said Banks, who pretends that said land is incapable of partition, according to the rights of the parties; that such pretence is unfounded; and that…
1Opinion of the Court
Archer J.,
at this term delivered the opinion of the court.
The amended bill filed in this case, calls for a disclosure by Basil Banks, of the right, interest or estate, he claims in the *101lands sought by the bill to be divided or sold, and the grounds or title on which his claim is rested. We consider the answer of jBasil Banks as responsive to this enquiry in the bill, and as evidence in this cause. It refers to the answer of Samuel Banks, and adopts that answer. We have then a right to refer to both answers, for the purpose of obtaining the disclosure called for in the amended bill. He…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Sindall v. CampbellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1848