| Volume 194, Page 540 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
540 IS ELIZ. CAP. 5, FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES. and no creditor can assail a voluntary conveyance, unless he is a creditor at the time, and see Brinton v. Hook supra; Ward v. Hollins, 14 Md. 158. In Williams v. Banks, 11 Md. 198, it was expressly decided that our registration laws are notice to purchasers and creditors under this Statute and Stat. 27 Eliz. c. 4. On the other hand, where there is fraud in fact, and the deed is set aside at the instance of prior creditors, subsequent creditors have a right to come in according to the provisions of the in- solvent laws, Kipp v. Hanna, and they have a right also to avoid a fraud- ulent deed, when made with the intention and design to defraud those who should thereafter become creditors, Williams v. Banks, Brinton v. Hook supra.58 And so it was repeated in Moore v. Blondheim, 19 Md. 172, that subsequent creditors may avoid a voluntary deed for fraud in fact, for the deed of a solvent grantor registered to defraud creditors would be set aside on the consummation of the fraud, all acts done in pursuance of fraud being treated in law as one act. Fraudulent conveyance void at law and in equity.—By the words of the Statute, a conveyance within its scope is altogether void at law, and a creditor who elects to treat it as void need not resort to a Court of 58 Proof of fraudulent intent.—Such intention need not be proved as an independent fact. It is to be gathered from the provisions of the deed itself, the acts of the parties, and all the surrounding circumstances. High Grade Brick Co. v. Amos, 95 Md. 599; Scott v. Keane, 87 Md. 717; Wise v. Pfaff, 98 Md. 583; Folsom v. Detrick Co., 85 Md. 52; Matthai v. Heather, 57 Md. 483; Drury v. Briscoe, 42 Md. 154; Kane v. Roberts, 40 Md. 590; McNamee v. Withers, 37 Md. 180. So a conveyance of property, absolute in form but really on secret trust for the grantor's benefit, no considera- tion having been paid by the grantee, and the purpose of both parties being fraudulent, is a continuing fraud voidable by subsequent as well as subsisting creditors. Spuck v. Logan, 97 Md. 1&2; Abramson v. Horner, 116 Md. —. Subsequent creditors may likewise assail a conveyance as void because of the policy of the law, where no actual fraud is proved. Warner v. Rice, 66 Md. 436; Brown v. Macgill, 87 Md. 161; Scott v. Keane, 87 Md. 717, But cf. In re Lane-Fox, (1900) 2 Q. B. 508. Likewise a mortgage to secure future advances contrary to the express provision of the statute. High Grade Brick Co. v. Amos, 95 Md. 571. In such cases the constructive notice afforded by the registration of the instrument is ineffectual, High Grade Brick Co. v. Amos, 95 Md. 601; Diggs v. McCullough, 69 Md. 610; and even actual notice where the deed is fraudulent on its face, or con- trary to the policy of the law. Scott v. Keane, 87 Md. 723. In England it is held that, where a person settles the whole or the bulk of his property out of the reach of creditors shortly before engaging in a hazardous trade, the conveyance may be set aside by subsequent creditors, though the settlor had no creditors at the time of the settle- ment. Mackay v. Douglas, L. R. 14 Eq. 106; Ex parte Russell, 19 Ch. D- 588. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
| Volume 194, Page 540 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives