# Coombs v. Jordan > High Court of Chancery of Maryland · June 30, 1810 · 3 Md. Ch. 284 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6683611 ## Case - **Full name:** COOMBS v. JORDAN - **Court:** High Court of Chancery of Maryland - **Decided:** June 30, 1810 - **Citations:** 3 Md. Ch. 284 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Kilty - **Judges:** Bland, Johnson, Kilty - **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6683611 ## Opinion text Kilty, Chancellor. Decreed, that the property in the proceedings mentioned be sold, that James Cook be, and he is hereby appointed trustee for making the said sale, &c., the one-half of the purchase money to be paid in one year, and the residue in three equal annual payments, with interest from the day of sale, &c. Under this decree, the trustee reported, that on the 24th day of September, 1810, he sold, subject to the dower of his widow, the real estate of the intestate to Jeremiah Booth, consisting of 397| acres of land, at $>28 50 per acre ; and an undivided half of a lot of land whereon a warehouse stood, for $1,000; amounting altogether to . Chetwynd, 1 Burr. 430. A Singular instance is mentioned of a fraud perpetrated by a bishop who invested his money in land to prevent his creditors from obtaining satisfaction after his death. — 1 Hallarn Const. His. Eng. 275, note 5. Rawlings v. Stewart, 1 Bland, 22 , note. Davidson v. Beatty, 3 H. & McH. 608 , 612. — Chancery Proceedings, lib. W. K. No. 1 ,fol. 1. Lewis v. Bacon, 3 Hen.'8c Mun. 89. Graff v. Smith, 1 Dall. 481 ; 4 Com. Dig. 228, 245; Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Peters, 658 ; Robinson v. Noel, 2 Cas. Cha. 145; Blankard v. Galdy, 4 Mod. 226. 2 Edwards’" His. Westlnd. 366; 3 ibid. 214 Baker v. Webb, 1 Hayw. 62 ; Winstead v. Winstead, 1 Hayw. 243 . Galphin v. McKinney, 1 McCord, 292 ; Telfair v. Stead, 2 Cran. 418; Thompson v. Grant, 1 Russ. 540, note; Will. Exrs. 1017. 1 Jefferson Corr. 106; 1734, ch. 25, 4 Hen. Stat. 452; 1744, ch. 40, 5 Hen. Stat. 292; 1748, ch. 12, 5 Hen. Stat. 526; 1759, ch. 34, 7 Hen. Stat. 328; 1761, ch. 28, 7 Hen. Stat. 450. Lewis v. Bacon, 3 Hen. & Mun. 89. Morgan v. Davis, 2 H. & McH. 12 ; Donaldson v. Harvey, 3 H. & McH. 13 ; Davidson v. Beatty, 3 H. & McH, 608; Kilty’s Rep, 250; Tayloe v. Thompson, 5 Peters, 358 . 2 Harr. Ent. 678. 13 Ed. 1, c. 18. Gilb. Execu. 37. Hampson v. Edelen, 2 H. & J. 64 . 2 Inst. 198, 397; 1 Niebuhr’s His. Rom. 437. West v. Hughes, 1 H. & J.6; 1799, ch. 86; 1801, ch. 42, s. 2. 1809, ch. 76, s. 4; 1814, ch. 82; Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland, 590 . This matter has been since disposed of by the act of 1831, ch. 290. Den. v. George, Taylor’s Rep. 22. Gilb. Execu. 41, 42; Ridgely v. McLaughlin, 3 H. & McH. 220 . Co. Litt. 4. Co. Litt. 53; Herlakenden’s case, 4 Co. 62. Ryall v. Rolle, 1 Atk. 175; Ex parte Quincy, 1 Atk. 477; Steward v. Lombe, 5 Com. Law Rep. 167; Winn v. Ingilby, 7 Com. Law Rep. 214; Colegrave v. Dias Santos, 9 Com. Law Rep. 30; Am. and Fer. Fixtures, ch. 5; Bradley v. Osterhoudt, 13 Johns. 404 ; Kirwan v. Latour, 1 H. & J. 289 . Lawton v. Lawton, 3 Atk. 13. Elwes v. Maw, 3 East. 38. Beck v. Rebow, 1 P. Will. 94; Dudley v. Warde, Amb. 113; Lawton v. Lawton, 3 Atk. 13; Poole’s case, 1 Salk. 368; Fitzherbert v. Shaw, 1 H. Blac. 258; Elwes v. Maw, 3 East. 38; Wyndham v. Way, 4 Taunt. 316; Lee v. Risdon, 2 Com, Law Rep. 69 ; Bull, N. P. 34; Am. and Fer. Fixtures, ch. 2; Holmes v. Tremper, 20 John. 29 ; Van Ness v. Pacard, 2 Peter. 137; Steward v. Lombe, 5 Com. Law Rep. 168; Buckland v. Butterfield, 6 Com. Law Rep. 18; Farrant v. Thompson, 16 Com. Law Rep. 62. Herlakenden’s case, 4 Co. 62. Peacock v. Purvis, 6 Com. Law Rep. 154. It has been since declared, that where land shall have been rented in consideration of a render of a portion of the crop, or for a specific amount of produce, it shall not be lawful, under any process against the tenant, to sell the crop before it shall be divided, but the same may be sold subject to the lessor. — 1831, ch. 171. Com. Dig. tit. Execution, C. 3 and C. 4; Am. and Fer. Fixtures, 173 ; Jac. Dict. v. Emblements. Co. Litt. 19; Morgan v. Mansel, 2 Plow.; The King v. The Mayor of London, 4 T. R. 21; The King w. Page, 4 T. R. 543; Drybutter v. Bartholomew, 2 P. Will. 127; Buckeridge v. Ingram, 2 Ves., jun., 652; Knapp v. Williams, 4 Ves. 430, note; Finch v. Squire, 10 Ves. 41; Powel Mortg. 142. 2 Inst. 394; Underhill v. Devereux, 2 Saund. 69; Arbuckle v. Cowtan, 3 Bos. & Pull. 322; Scott v. Scholey, 8 East. 467; Gilb. Execu. 39; Powel Mortg. 255, note K, 599, note W. Powel Mortg. 24, note. Shaw v. Wright, 3 Ves. 22; Knapp v. Williams, 4 Ves. 430, note. It has been since provided by the act of 1832, ch. 307, that under a fieri facias, or attachment, any interest which the defendant *316 may have in the capital or joint stock of any corporation, or in the debt of any corporation transferable on its books, may be taken and sold in the manner therein prescribed. But whether a lien fastens upon any such property from the date of the judgment or only from the delivery of the fieri facias to the sheriff, or otherwise, remains to be determined. Horn v. Horn, Amb. 79; Caillaud v. Estwiek, 2 Anstr. 381; Denton v. Livingston, 9 John. 96 ; Hadden v. Spader, 20 John. 554 . J) Powel Mortg. 599, note W. Warfield v. Gambrill, 1 G. & J. 503. Addison v. Bowie, 2 Bland, 606 Rebecca Owing’s case, 1 Bland, 290 . Harding v. Stevenson, 6 H, & J. 267. Conrad v. The Atlantic Insurance Company, 1 Peter. 443; Wright v. Wright, 1 Ves. 409; Carleton v. Leighton, 3 Meriv. 667 — 1 Rich. 3 , c. 1. 27 Hen. 8 , c. 10. 19 Hen. 7 , c. 15. 29 Car. 2, c. 3, s. 10. Powel Mortg. 255, 309, 601; Scott v. Scholey, 8 East. 467; Metcalf v. Scholey, 5 Bos. & Pull. 461. Mitf. Plea. 172. October, 1780, ch. 51, s. 5; 1785, ch. 78. 1792, ch. 44; 1794, ch. 60; 1795, ch. 88, s. 2 and 3. Campbell v. Morris, 3 H. & McH. 535 ; Pratt v. Law, 9 Cran. 456, 495; Campbell v. Pratt, 5 Wheat. 429 . Hopkins v. Stump, 2 H. & J. 302. Ford v. Philpot, 5 H. & J. 312 . 1810, ch. 160. Powel Mortg. 274, note. Jackson v. Willard, 4 John. Rep. 41 . Scott v. Scholey, 8 East. 467; Archer v. Snapp, Andrews, 341; Hopkins v. Stump, 2 H. & J. 301 ; Harding v. Stevenson, 6 H. & J. 264 . Powel Mortg. 547; Ram. on Assets, 292. Burdett v. Rockley, 1 Vern. 58; Bligh v. Darnley, 2 P. Will. 621; Forum Rom. 87. Crofts v. Oldfield, 3 Swan. 278, note. 1785, ch. 80, s. 7. 1798, ch. 101, sub ch. 8, s. 17. 1785, ch. 72, s. 25. Bligh v. Darnley, 2 P. Will. 622; Forum Rom, 87. Miller v. Parnell, 1 Com. Law Rep. 414; Primrose v. Gibson, 16 Com. Law Rep. 78. Dickins v. Hiffner. — In this case a decree having been passed for a conveyance of a tract of land as therein specially described, and also for costs; the plaintiff by his petition, on oath, stated, that the defendant had been regularly served with a copy of the decree, but had complied with no part of it. Whereupon he prayed an attachment, which was awarded and returned attached. After which the plaintiff by petition prayed for a fieri facias for the costs; and an attachment of contempt for the non-performance of the other part of the decree. 1807. — Kilty, Chancellor. — The Chancellor was not satisfied that he had the power, under the act (1785, ch. 72, s. 25) to issue a fieri facias in the manner prayed. The allowance of that kind of execution appears to be for cases in which the property sold can satisfy the demand of the plaintiff in the decree specified. It is possible, that if every other part of the decree was complied with, a fieri facias might then issue for the costs; but it does not appear regular to issue one kind of execution or process for one part of the decree, and another for another. The party' may either proceed with his attachment in the usual manner, or without proceeding on the one served, take out a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum against the defendant, as that kind of execution will go to the whole. — M. S. 1810, ch. 160-. Powel Mortg. 435; Rankin v. Scott, 12 Wheat. 179. Davidson v. Clayland, 1 H. & J. 546 ; Jones v. Jones, 1 Bland, 451 ; Lewis v. Zouche, 2 Cond. Chan. Rep. 470. Gilb. Execu. 12, 26, 92, 95; Gilb. Court of Exchequer, 166; Anonymous, 2 Salk. 603; Stileman v. Ashdown, 2 Atk. 609; Eppes v. Randolph, 2 Call. 125; Nimmo v. The Commonwealth, 4 Hen. & Mun. 57; Coleman v. Cocke, 6 Rand. 629 ; Rankin v. Scott, 12 Wheat. 179 ; The United States v. Morrison, 4 Peters, 124 . May, 1766, ch. 7; February, 1777, ch. 15, s. 7; October, 1778, ch. 21, s. 7; Bac. Abr. tit. Limitation of Actions, E. 6. 13 Ed. 1. C. 45. 1823, ch. 194. Jacob Law Dict. v. Relation; Heapy v. Parris, 6 T. R. 368; Lord Mahon’s case, 6 Mod. 59; Anonymous, 3 Atk. 521; Fothergill v. Kendrick, 2 Vern. 234; Bothomly v. Fairfax, 2 Vern. 751; S. C. 1 P. Will. 335. 1785, ch. 72, s. 13 ; 1831, ch. 304; Panned v. The Farmers Bank, 7 H. & J. 202. Oades v. Woodward, 1 Salk. 87; Heapy v. Parris, 6 T. R. 368; Williams v. Bradley, 2 Hayw. 363 . — 2 Inst. 471. 2 Inst. 471; Blacklock v. Maddox, 2 Harr. Ent. 694; 1799, ch. 79, s. 10 ; 1826, ch. 157; Underhill v. Devereux, 2 Saund. 72, c. note; Michell v. Cue, 2 Burr, 660; Franklin v. Thomas, 3 Meriv. 234. 2 Inst. 471; Bac. Abr. tit. Scire Facias, C. 1; Bing. Execu. 161; Cooke v. Batthurst, 2 Show. 235 ; Mullikin v. Duvall, 7 G. &.J. 355. Ridgely v. Gartrell, 3 H. & McH. 449 ; Bing. Execu. 161. Robinson v. Tonge, 3 P. Will. 398; Burroughs v. Elton, 11 Ves. 36; Rowe v. Bant, 1 Dick. 150. Drewry v. Thacker, 3 Swan. 529; Clarke v. Ormonde, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 54. Comber’s case, 1 P. Will. 767. Barrington v. O’Brien, 1 Ball & Be. 173; Matthews’ Presum. 470; Thomas v. Harvie, 10 Wheat. 146 ; Berrett v. Oliver, 7 G. & J. 207 . Stump v. Hopkins. — On the petition in this case a ca. sa. was ordered, on the return of which it was moved to quash the execution, because more than a year had elapsed from the date of the decree before the application for the ca. sa. 1806. — Kilty, Chancellor. — This objection is such as to cause some doubt, and to require consideration; therefore, the execution must be quashed as having been erroneously issued. — M. S.; Forum Rom. 192 ; 1823, eh. 194. Selwin, N. P. 627 ; 3 Blac. Com. 160, note; Bates v. Lockwood, 1 T. R. 638; Holmes v. Wainewright, 1 Swan. 28; Sasscer v. Walker, 5 G. & J. 103 . Kemys v. Ruscomb, 2 Atk. 45; Hales v. Hales, 1 Rep. Cha. 105; Winchcomb v. Winchcomb, 2 Rep. Cha. 101 1715, ch. 23, s. 6; Hammond v. Denton, 1 H. & McH. 200 . 1806, ch. 90, s. 11; 1815, eh. 149, s. 5 and 6; Green v. Watkins, 6 Wheat. 261 . Bac. Abr. tit. Abatement, F; Penoyer v. Brace, 1 Ld. Raym. 244. Garnon’s case, 5 Co. 88; Howard v. Pitt, Carth. 236; S. C. 1 Show. 402. 1823, ch. 194. Robinson v, Tonga, 3 P. Will. 398; Burroughs v. Elton, 11 Ves. 36. Sug. Ven. and Pur. 366. Bennett v. Hamill, 2 Scho. & Lefr. 577, 581; Burke v. Crosbie, 1 Ball. & Bea. 501; Lloyd v. Johnes, 9 Ves. 65; Curtis v. Price, 12 Ves. 105. Powel Mortg. 348, 526, 1019. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6683611. Public record. Not legal advice.