Case Name: Pierpoint's Adm'rs. vs. Pierpoint
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1810-12
Citations: 3 H. & J. 165
Docket Number: 
Parties: Pierpoint's Adm'rs. vs. Pierpoint.
Judges: The cause was argued before Ojíase, Oh. J. Polk, Buchanan, and Gantt, 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: 3
Pages: 165–166

Head Matter:
Pierpoint's Adm'rs. vs. Pierpoint.
Appeal from Baltimore pounty Court. Covenant by the appellee against the appellants. The general issue was pleaded; and at the trial the plaintiff gave in evidence the following agreement, dated the 17th of October 1799. “I do promise ami oblige myself to convey to Samuel Pier-point, or bis assigns, six acres of land, lying between his house and Sam. Clark's, as I do acknowledge 1 have received the full purchase money for said lamí. In witness” &c. Signed and sealed by 'Thomas Pierpoint. And proved that T. pinpoint, the intestate, executed tfye same. He also gave in evidence a grant dated the 20th of December I7f)7, issued to Joseph, Thomas, Walter, Benedict and Samuel Pierpoint, and ,3datn Ground, as tenants in common, fora tract of land called Pinpoint's United Defence containing 557 acres. He also proved, that the six acres of land, mentioned in the above agreement, is part of the land mentioned in the grant, and that S. Pierpoint (the plaintiff,) and T, Pierpoint, (the defendants’intestate,)'are the same S. and T. Pierpoint mentioned in the grant, it was admitted by the parties that T. Pierpoint never made a -conveyance of the six acres of land mentioned in the. agreement to the plaintiff’, and that the plaintiff had several times requested T. Pierpoint to convey the land to him, which, lie promised do, but never did, nor has it ever sines been conveyed to the plaintilA or been in his possession, nor a <|e?d of conveyance £er the sans^ ever tendered* • ; . 1 ' 4 - i t i either before or since the death of T. Pierpoint, to the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff never tendered a deed of conveyance for the land to T. Pierpoint to be executed by him. The defendant then proved, that T. Pierpoint died in September 1800; and thereupon moved the court to direct the jury, that to entitle the plaintiff to recover in this action against the defendants, it is incumbent on him to prove to the jury that he had tendered a deed of conveyance of the six acres of land from T. Pierpoint to himself, to T. Pierpoint, in his life-time, to be executed by I\ Pier-point, and that T. Pierpoint neglected or refused to execute the same. This direction the court, [Nicholson, Ch. J-3 refused to give, butdirected the jury, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover in this action against the defendants unless they proved to the jury that T. Pierpoint had made a regular and legal conveyance of the six acres of land to the plaintiff, or had tendered a deed of conveyance for the same to the plaintiff. The defendant afterwards moved the court to direct the jury, that T. Pierpoint was entitled to a reasonable time to have the land, mentioned in the grant, divided between the several tenants in common thereof, before he A>as bound to make a conveyance of the six acres, meniioned in the agreement, to the plaintiff; and that T. Pierpoint died before that reasonable time had expired. But the court refused to give the direction. The defendants excepted; and t’ne verdict and judgment being against them they appealed to this court.
Covenant <m promi e minio in 1790,. in wriniji, under son!,by I» tocomvytoS hi* aeies of bind, a-ii in a partícula i* place, tin* putejiastnmme> hemi? received, There had been a grant made to T and Ss and others, as ie~ nants "m common, of 357 acres oí land, which had not been dhided, ai>(l the six aert« were a part of that tract. T died m UOo, who had iu his lifetime refttv’ ed to execute a deed for (he land, ’pot tht re was no evidence that a deed luid b on tendered to T lor him to execute.— ijd-d, that was entitled lo ieerier pi 'the aoininistin* tors ot 'l, wiles? they ' priivf d to tbe'.juiy *hs«l T n.xi made a rey udu*’and legal con» v. yanee Í.!<.í" the six acres jit land lo S, or b Vti H*'r* ikied n 'Uetit for
The cause was argued before Ojíase, Oh. J. Polk, Buchanan, and Gantt, J.
Winder, for the Appellants,
T. It. Dorsey, for the Appellee.
He cited Halling's case, 5 Coke, 23. Heard vs. Wadham, 1 East, 629. Seton vs. Slade, 7 Ves. 278. Pincke vs. Curties, 4 Bro. Chan. Rep. 332; and Smith vs. Burnham, 2 Anstr. 527.

Opinion:
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED*