Case Name: Charles Ridgely, of William, against William M'Laughlin
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1794-05
Citations: 3 Md. 220
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles Ridgely, of William, against William M'Laughlin.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland reports, being a series of the most important law cases argued and determined in the Provincial Court and Court of Appeals of the then province of Maryland, from the year 1700 [i.e. 1658] down to the [end of 1799]
Volume: 3
Pages: 220–222

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
MAY TERM, 1794.
Charles Ridgely, of William, against William M'Laughlin.
THE chancellor, in this case, submitted to the general court the following statement for their opinion thereon, to wit:
Charles Ridgely, of John, a resident of Baltimore county, seised as tenant in tail of certain land, lying in Anne Arundel county, and purposing to destroy the entail, and bar the remainders, on the 18th of 3Iarch, Í786, executed a deed indented of bargain and sale of the said land, in consideration of Ss. to his brother John Ridgely and his heirs; and the said John Ridgely, on the same day, executed a like deed for reconveying the said land to the said Charles Ridgely and his heirs.
The said deeds, being duly executed, weré bn the same day acknowledged before two justices of the peace of Baltimore county, and, within six months from their date, recorded amongst the land records of Baltimore county.
The said Charles Ridgely died about the year 1786, leaving his son Charles, an infant, his heir at law, and having devised the said land to his infant daughters Rachel and Rebecca, and their heirs, as tenants in common. The said devisees, on the 24th of April, 1787, by their next friend, filed a bill in chancery against their brother, ¿he said Charles, his heir at law as aforesaid, for the purpose of obtaining a decree for recording the said deeds amongst the land records of Anne Arundel county ; ° . ... the clerk of Baltimore county having previously, viz. on the 16th of April, 1787, endorsed each of them with his certificate, under the seal of his office, that the persons before whom the acknowledgments had been taken, were justices of the peace for the said county.
The said Charles, heir as aforesaid, having been summoned to answer the said bill, and having put in his answer by his guardian, a decree was passed by the honourable John Rogers, chancellor, “ that the said deeds (describing them) be recorded among the records of Anne Arundel county, according to the prayer of the petition, and agreeable to the act of assembly in such case made and provided,”
The said deeds were recorded amongst the records of Anne Arundel county, under, and in virtue of, the said decree.
Afterwards, viz. on the 9th of June, 1788, certain creditors of the aforesaid Charles Ridgely, deceased, filed a bill against all his children and devisees, who were infants, for the purpose of obtaining a decree to sell the lands to them devised, for the payment of his just debts, his personal estate being insufficient. And in due course of proceeding a decree was passed directing a sale of the land, devised as aforesaid to Rachel and Rebecca, as well as the lands devised to the other children; no objection having been made, on account of the insufficiency of the aforesaid deeds to bar the entail and remainders.
By the said last decree, William MiLaughlin was appointed trustee for selling the said lands on credit, taking bonds with security from the purchasers. He accordingly sold the land devised to Rachel and Rebecca, unto Charles Ridgely, of William, the complainant in the present cause, and took his bond for the purchase-money ; and the sale has been confirmed by the chancellor.
And now the said complainant, being advised that the aforesaid decree for recording the deeds was not authorized by law, and that the legal and equitable title to the land by him purchased, is in the aforesaid Charles, the son and heir of the aforesaid Charles Ridgely, of John, has filed his bill to be relieved from his purchase. And forasmuch as the decision of the chancellor, on the point of law arising in this cause will not be conclusive, even if there shall be no appeal, he hath taken the liberty of stating the case to the honourable the judges of the general court, and of .requesting their opinion,
“ Whether or not the said Charles Ridgely, of William, on paying the purchase-money, and obtaining from the trustee aforesaid, agreeably to the directions of the decreé, a deed, acknowledged and recorded agreeably to law, for conveying the land in question to him and his heirs, will be able to make out a good title against the aforesaid Charles, heir of Charles Ridgely, of John, the tenant in tail, or against those in remainder; in case an ejectment shall be hereafter brought against him by the said heir, or by any of those in remainder, on the failure of the issue in tail. “ A. C. Hanson, Chancellor”

Opinion:
Opinion of the General Court.
" Having considered this case, and heard counsel thereon, we are of opinion, that the said Charles Ridgely, of William, on paying the purchase-money, and obtaining from the trustee aforesaid, agreeably to the directions of the aforesaid decree, a deed, acknowledged and recorded agreeably to law, for conveying the land in question to him and his heirs, will not be able to make ,out a good title against the aforesaid Charles Ridgely, heir of Charles Ridgley, of John, or against those in remainder, on an ejectment being brought against him by the said heir, or those in remainder, or any of them, on the failure of the issue in tail. " Samuel Chase,
" R. Goldsborough,
" J. T. Chase."