The court compelled Lord Baltimore to comply with the obligations he had assumed to the Penn family, by setting the Mason-Dixon line, demarcating boundaries between the privately-owned territories of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Delaware, and afterwards came to symbolise the difference between slavery and freedom. The Court did not claim to interfere with the land laws of colonial North America: those were the exclusive province of the local judges. It did have a right in personam against Lord Baltimore.
Citations:
(1750) 1 Ves Sen 447
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – R Griggs Group Ltd and others v Evans and others (No 2) ChD 12-May-2004
A logo had been created for the claimants, by an independent sub-contractor. They sought assignment of their legal title, but, knowing of the claimant’s interest the copyright was assigned to a third party out of the jurisdiction. The claimant . .
Cited – Norris v Chambres 1862
A company director had advanced part of a loan for the purchase of a mine in Prussia. He died, and because of lack of funds, his estate risked losing everything. His estate sought its recovery.
Held: ‘With respect to this advance, I think . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.199517
