| Volume 194, Page 544 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
544 13 ELIZ. CAP. S, FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES. so bono fide and with no design of defrauding her of her just claims on him and his estate; and in that case, though the grantor was clearly guilty of a fraud, the deed was not avoided as to the innocent grantee; and see Faringer v. Ramsey, 2 Md. 365. So in Hays v. Henry, 1 Md. Ch. Dec. 337, and Dunnock v. Dunnock, 3 Md. Ch. Dec. 140, the Chancellor held that, if a conveyance by the husband were a mere device to deprive his widow at his death of his personalty, it would not be good against her. And, on the other hand, it was held in Cole v. O'Neil, 4 Md. 107; 3 Md. Ch. Dec. 174, that a voluntary conveyance by a woman in contemplation of mar- riage is void as to the husband from whom it was concealed, or who had no notice of it up to the moment of the intended marriage,67 but construc- tive notice, by enrolment of the deed, is sufficient to affect the husband; and the Chancellor there further held, that the protection which equity gives to the separate estate of the wife extends through any subsequent coverture, though a second or future husband be not named by the settlor, the prin- ciple being that a person, marrying a woman with property so circum- stanced, is considered as adopting it in the state in which he finds it, and bound in equity not to disturb it. Creditor as party to fraud.—In Roberts v. Gibson's Ex'r., 6 H. & J. 116, the creditor impeaching the deed had been an active party in the fraud, and not being an innocent creditor he was held not entitled to the benefit of the Statute, and it has been repeatedly held that fraudulent convey- ances of lands are good between the parties. Freeman v. Sedwick, 6 Gill, 28, was a case where a fraudulent grantor claimed relief against the effect of his deed; in Stewart v. Iglehart supra, he resisted, as defendant, the claim of his grantee, and in both cases it was held that he could not rely on his own fraud; and see Doe v. Roberts, 2 B. & A. 367. In Cushwa v. Cushwa, 5 Md. 44, the Court said such a deed was good against the parties or their heirs at law: in Haines v. Haines, 6 Md. 435, a voluntary agree- 40S ment by a father to convey lands to his daughter and* her hus- band, of which he put them in possession, was considered sufficient to defeat the application of his other heirs for a partition of this part of his property after his death, see Shepperd v. Bevin, 9 Gill, 32; and in Kinne- mon v. Miller, 2 Md. Ch. Dec. 407, a bill by the administrator of a de- ceased grantor to set aside a voluntary conveyance to his wife and chil- dren, as in fraud of creditors, was held not to lie. 67 The same principle is applicable to similar conveyances by a man in contemplation of marriage. In Collins v. Collins, 98 Md. 473, a man twenty days before his marriage made a voluntary conveyance of all of his property, reserving a life interest to himself, for the purpose of defeat- ing the marital rights of his intended wife. The conveyance was made without her knowledge but no actual misrepresentation was made to her. It was held that the deed was a fraud on the wife and could be vacated in equity. The court, however, expressly states that the validity of a con- veyance which embraces only a part of the husband's estate, or which makes provision out of his estate for children by a former marriage, is left open for future consideration. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 544 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