Supreme Court of Maryland, 1806

Howard v. Moale

Supreme Court of Maryland · Decided June 15, 1806 · Fpiie, Nicholsox

2 H. & J. 249

Counsel

Ridgely, for the Defendant,, Shaajf, on the same side,, Martin, (Attorney General,) Key, and If'. Dorsey, for ■¡.lie. Plaintiff,, Harper, in reply,, Shaaff ami Harper, for the Defendant,, fehttaff and Harper* for the Defendant,, Martin, (Attorney General,) and Key, for the Plaintiff,, Shaajft for the Defendant,, Harper, for the Defendant,, Key, contra,, Martini (Attorney General,), Shaajf and Harper? contra,, Martin, (Attorney -General,) and Fey, -for the Plaintiff;, Harper, Shaaff and Taney, for the Appellant,, Johúson, (Attorney (xeneral,) Key, Mason and Martini, for the Appellee,

Opinion of the Court

fPiiE Court,

(at this téi-m,) concurred in the opinions of the General Court, as contained in the several bills of exceptions taken on the part of the defendant in that court, and were of opinion, that there was no error either in the judgment or in the record of proceedings.

Nicholsox, J.

I atn for affirming the judgment upon all the bills of exceptions; also upon the alleged uncertainty of the verdict and judgment; also for the alleged error as to the death of Richard It. Moale. I am decidedly of opinion, that the death of the plaintiff’s lessor does not abate a suit in ejectment. In affirming the judgment of the general court, upon the first bill of exceptions, I wish it to be understood that Ido not entertain the most remote idea, that the Lord Proprietary was not liable to be es-. topped, as other individuals are, or that he had any other of the incidental prerogatives of the Kings of England: he had only such of the direct prerogatives as were expressly granted by the charter.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED,

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.