Case Name: Joseph Chaplin's Lessee against John Shoot
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1795-05
Citations: 3 Md. 350
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph Chaplin’s Lessee against John Shoot.
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: 350–351

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
MAY TERM, 1795.
Joseph Chaplin’s Lessee against John Shoot.
EJECTMENT for a lot of ground in Sharpsburg town, in Washington county, No. 88. being part of a tract called Hickory Tavern.
By the bill of exceptions taken in the cause, it appears the plaintiff’s counsel produced and read the patent of the tract of land mentioned in the declaration, of which it was admitted the lot No. 88. was part; and it was admitted that a certain John Lejfie, of Washington county, was seised in fee-simple of the said lot, on the 2d of May, 1/86; and being so seised, he was duly taken and committed in execution, at the suit of a certain Solomon Brumfield, on a ca. sa. duly issued out of Washington county court; and being so committed, he petitioned three justices of the peace for the said county, to be discharged as an insolvent debtor, under the act of assembly, entitled “ An act for the relief of insolvent debtors,” passed in the year 1ZZ4. That in pursuance of the said petition, (all the requisites prescribed by the said act having been complied with, except that Lejfie did not sign the schedule of his estate, debts and credits; and that the justices did not subscribe as witnesses to the said schedule according to the directions of the said act,) the said justices did, on the 2d of May, 1787, by their order in writing, command the sheriff of the said county to set Leffle at liberty, which was done accordingly, That the justices did transmit the schedule to the clerk of the county court, (and no other schedule of the estate, debts and credits of the said Leffle^ which was not signed or subscribed by Leffle, or the justices, or any of them. That afterwards, on the 25th of April, 1791, the sheriff sold, and duly conveyed the said lot to David Harvey, who afterwards sold and conveyed the same to the defendant. That before the said conveyance, on the 26th of March, 1791, the said Leffle conveyed the said lot to the lessor of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff’s counsel thereupon prayed the opinion of the court, and their direction to the jury, that the proceedings by the justices on the petition, and their order of discharge, did not vest the said land in the sheriff of Washington county.
Mason, for the plaintiff.
Key, for the defendant.

Opinion:
The Court
(Chase, Ch. J. and Goldsborough, J.)
were of opinion, and accordingly directed the jury, that in virtue of the proceedings of the justices, and their discharge of the said Leffle, the property of the lot was vested in the sheriff, and that the defendant had, therefore, made title to the land.
To this opinion and direction of the court, the plaintiff excepted, and appealed to the court of appeals.
At June term, 1797, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the general court.