| Volume 194, Page 559 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
27 ELIZ. CAP. 4, VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCES. 559 II. Fraudulent Conveyances made to deceive Purchasers, shall be void. Moor. 602, pi. 833; 616, pi. 843. 1 Roll. 167. Lane, 47. Bridgm. 22. Golsb. 8, pi. 11. 3 Co. 80. 5 Co. 60. 6 Co. 72. 11 Co. 74. Cro. El. 44. Cro. Jac. 158. Cok. 677. Hob. 166. III. The Penalty of the Parties to fraudulent Conveyances, who do avow the same. IV. Conveyances made upon good Considerations, and bona fide. Golsb. 118, pi. 2. 2 Roll. 305. 3 Co. 83. V. Lands first conveyed with Condition of Revocation, or Alteration, and after gold for Money, or other good Consideration. Cro. Jac. 180. VI. Mortgages lawfully made. XI. Assurance of Lands defeated, and the Party in Possession at the Time of the Statute. * This Statute particularly addresses itself to the protection of 417 purchasers of the specific estate, the conveyance of which is impeached as fraudulent. It is settled that it does not apply to dispositions of person- alty, Bohn v. Headley, 7 H. & J. 258.1 Voluntary conveyance good against purchaser with notice, actual or constructive.—In England, a voluntary conveyance is void against a subse- quent purchaser even with notice. Doe d. Otley v. Saunders, 9 East, 59,2 and the authority of this case seems to have been recognized by Ch. J. Archer in Bohn v. Headley supra. But in later cases it has been held here that the Statute condemns only covinous and fraudulent conveyances, and the doctrine of Cathcart v. Robinson, 5 Peters, 280, has been adopted as the rule of the Statute.3 In Warren's lessee v. Richardson, cited in the Mayor, &c. v. Williams, 6 Md. 235, the Court of Appeals held that a voluntary deed was not void as against subsequent purchasers with notice, and that enrolment of the deed is sufficient notice. In the latter case, A. executed a deed of all her property to B., in trust to permit her (A.) to take the profits, &c. during her life, and after her death to uses as expressed in her last will. Three years afterwards, she conveyed parcel of the property to C. for a valuable consideration. And the Court approved the doctrine that a bona fide vol- untary conveyance is not per se void as against a purchaser for value, but if the latter have no notice, the subsequent sale is presumptive evidence of fraud, which easts on those claiming under the voluntary conveyance the onus of showing that it was bona fide; and it was repeated, that the enrolment of the voluntary deed was sufficient to hind the purchaser, and see Williams v. Banks, 11 Md. 198. But in this case the purchaser had notice in fact of, and had taken a deed of indemnity against, the settlement. In Cook's Lessee v. Kell, 13 Md. 469, the question again came up. There 1 Halifax Co. v. Gledhill, (1891) 1 Ch. 31. 2 This was the established doctrine in England. See 1 Smith's Lead. Cas., (11th Ed.), Vol. 1 p. 25; Bowen v. Chase, 94 U. S. 812. It has been changed, however, by 56 and 57 Vict., c. 21, (1893), under which act a voluntary conveyance, if bona fide and without fraudulent intent, is valid as against a subsequent purchaser for value. • See note 58 to 13 Eliz., c. 5; Estate of Leiman, 32 Md. 226. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 559 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