Case Name: Quynn, Administrator D. B. N. of Rutland, against Thomas Staines, and Elizabeth his Wife
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1793-05
Citations: 3 Md. 128
Docket Number: 
Parties: Quynn, Administrator D. B. N. of Rutland, against Thomas Staines, and Elizabeth his Wife.
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: 128–131

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
MAY TERM, 1793.
Quynn, Administrator D. B. N. of Rutland, against Thomas Staines, and Elizabeth his Wife.
THIS was a bill filed to obtain an injunction, and was filed in this court because the chancellor was interested. The bill stated that Francis Sprang, and Elizabeth his wife, being seised of lot No. A. in the city of Annapolis, sold and conveyed the same to Nathan Hammond, by deed, dated 13th July, 1759. That Francis Sprang died in the year 1772, and the said Elizabeth, his wife, after-wards, in 1773, intermarried with Thomas Staines. That Nathan Hammond sold and conveyed the said lotto Thomas Rutland, on the 14th March, 1760. That the said Rut-land entered and possessed the same for eleven years, and made very considerable improvements, &c. and the said Rutland, believing his title good, sold and conveyed the same, on the 18th December, 1771, to Bennet Chew, for 625/. sterling, with a covenant in case of eviction, &c. tb refund, &c. That the said Rutland died in November, 1773, having first made his will, leaving Thomas Rutland, his grandson, his heir at law, executor and residuary legatee. That notwithstanding the said deed from the said Sprong and wife Elizabeth, (now Elizabeth Staines, one of the defendants herein named,) the said covenants and general warranty and receipt of valuable consideration, &c. the said Thomas Staines, and Elizabeth his wife, the defendants, in the month of July, 1779, commenced an ejectment in the general court against the said Ben-net Chew, for the recovery of the said lot and premises, under pretence that the said Elizabeth was under the age of 21 years at the time when she executed the said deed. That the said lot was recovered and taken from the said Chew on the 12th of October, 1784, and possession given to the said Staines and wife, who afterwards sold and conveyed the same to John Rogers, Esq. for the sum of 3,000/. That the said Chew afterwards commenced an action of covenant against the said Rutland, last named, as executor of the said Rutland, first named, and recovered judgment in the general court, for the sum of 625/. sterling money, of the value of 1,041/. current money. That the complainant has frequently requested the said Staines and wife to make him compensation for the improvements erected and put on the said lot of ground by the said first-named Rutland, as before described, as in justice and equity they ought and are bound to do, which they have refused, &c. That the said Staines and wife have received the sum of from the said. Rogers, in part payment for the said lot, and will, in a short time, receive the remainder, if not prevented by this court, &c. prays a writ of injunction to the said Rogers, to prevent the payment, &c. and subpoena to said Staines and wife, &c.
In this case it was agreed between the parties, that the dwelling-house was built on the lot purchased by Rutland, after the purchase made of one of the defend>ants, the wife of Staines, and that the same is of the value of 600/. current money, and that the kitchen, and other buildings on the said lot, were built by Bennet Chew, of whom the said lot and premises were recovered in the ejectment brought by the defendants against him after the purchase made of the said lot by the said Chew, of the said Rutland; and that the said buildings and improvements erected thereon by the said Chew are of the value of 150/. current money; and it is agreed that all the said improvements were placed on the said lot before the recovery thereof in the ejectment aforesaid, and after the purchase by the said Rutland; and that since the eviction of the title of the said Chew, the said Rut-land, devisee of the said Rutland, senior, has refunded and paid to the said Chew the purchase-money given for the said lot and houses ; that the dwelling-house aforesaid was built about the year 1765, and the other houses were erected by Chew in the years 1772 and 1773, whilst Elizabeth, one of the said defendants, was a widow.

Opinion:
Decree, by Judges Goldsborough and J. T. Chase,
that the injunction heretofore issued in this cause, be dissolved as to all such sums of money, due from the said John Rogers, his executors and administrators, on account of the purchase of the houses and lot mentioned in the said bill of complaint, except as to the sum of 150/. current money, the value of the buildings erected on the said lot by Bennet Chew, and that, as to the said sum of 150/. current money, the said injunction heretofore issued in this cause, to prohibit the payment thereof, be and is hereby ordered to stand and remain, subject to such order and decree herein, as this court shall hereafter make respecting the same.
A bill was afterwards filed in this court by Anna Maria Chew, executrix of Bennet Chew, against the said Ahtynn, as administrator de bonis non of the said Rutland, and the said Staines and wife, claiming the said 150/. current money, for improvements, See. referring to the proceedings in the preceding case, and at October term, 1793, the following decree, by the same judges, was passed, to wit: That the said Staines and wife do and shall pay and satisfy unto the said Anna Maria Chew, executrix of Bennet Chezu. the sum of 150/. current mo- . , ney, with interest thereon from the time the same shall be demanded from the said Staines and wife, and that, upon payment of the same, and interest thereon as aforesaid, the injunction heretofore issued in the suit referred to by the bill of the said Chew, in which the said ^iiynn was complainant, against the said Staines and wife, shall be, and is hereby declared to be, dissolved.
Duvall, for the complainant.
Cooke, for the defendants.
The chief judge had been counsel in the cause.