Case Name: Graham, et ux. vs. Yates and Myers's Heirs et al.
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1824-06
Citations: 6 H. & J. 229
Docket Number: 
Parties: Graham, et ux. vs. Yates and Myers’s Heirs et al.
Judges: The cause was argued before Buchanan, Ch. J. Earle, Martin, and Stephen, J.
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 6
Pages: 229–230

Head Matter:
Graham, et ux. vs. Yates and Myers’s Heirs et al.
Th‘3 comp-aimnn’s hiM a b'ovci tí ctmmu't i<u* ilr<‘ uho'o of a &qnoie of ground, paymí’nt oí th*.'pui’’ chase more}, and possession UFtlor the contract. 1 h« (JefWicbim s answff d< nu‘<] the contract to the whole squavi, but admitted it as to a ptutj and a¿i>o de» nied payment of the purenaso money, am! possesion of (he whoie squnro — iiccm'f/, tnat on pa>meisi of khe whole p urdías? money, ml ímensit, the th« fondant •'houlti convoy the part of the Mjuare.
Appeal from the court of chancery. This bill was brought to compel Thomas laics, and his trustees, to convey to the complainants a square of ground called Hampstead Hill, in the city of Baltimore, upon au alleged contract by Charles Myers, the father of Matilda Grahame, the female complainant, of whoni she is the only child and heir. The bill asserts the payment of the money, and that in pursuance of the contract, Charles Myers took possession of the property in 1797, ,and improved and lived upon it until his death in 1800, and that it has been in possess! on of the complainants ever since. The answers denied the contract as to the whole square, but admitted it as to part, viz. a part called Stephen Stnard’s par!; and denied the payment of the purchase money, and possession in Charles, and the complainants, of the whole. The trustees of laics, anil the heirs of Jacob Myers, were willing to convey the admitted part, on receiving the purchase money and ínteres;-. The trustees of Yates claimed the residue of the. square as part of Yates’s estáte. The heirs of Jacob Myers claimed it as part oí Jacob Myers’ estate. It wouldbe impracticable to give a cleay or specific view of the grounds of these pretences of title, by the respective defendants, without giving a voluminous detail of facts. The claim of the heirs of Jacob Myers involved the consideration, how far certain judgments and sales by fieri facias, and recovery in ejectment, and sales under a decree in chancery, were competent to divest the title of Jacob Myers.
Kilty, Chancellor, decreed a conveyance for Stephen Si,yard’s part only, and that on payment of the whole purchase money and interest. From which decree the complainants appealed to this court.
The cause was argued before Buchanan, Ch. J. Earle, Martin, and Stephen, J.
Taney and R. Johnson, for the Appellants,
contended, 1. That the judgments and sales by fieri fiadas, and recovery in ejectment, and sales under the decree in chancery, did divest the title of Jacob Myers. 2. That the proof supports the allegations in the bill of the purchase, the payment of the, purchase money, the pursuant possession of the complainants, and Charles, Myers, under whom, they claim, and their title to have a decree for a conveyance. 3. That the decree of the chancellor is erroneous, in re-,' quiring the payment of the whole purchase money, and limiting the conveyance only to part of the lot of ground^
Harper, Magruder and Speed, for the Appellees.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Buchanan, Ch. J.
It is the opinion of the court, that the leasehold interests, arising out of the lease by Bond to Tyson, of the 6th of August 1780,'are wh.olly extinguished; but we think, that on principles governing courts of chancery, the alleged contract between Charles. Myers and Thomas I alts, which the. complainants seek to have enforced, but which is denied by Fetes in bis answer, is not sustained to the extent claimed; we think too, that the payment of money, which is also denied in. the answer of Yates, is not sufficiently proved.
The decree of the Chancellor is therefore affirmed with-put costa.
decree affirmed.