| Volume 194, Page 564 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
564 27 ELIZ. CAP. 4, VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCES. chasers -without notice, and "of the creditors of the party making such deed who may trust such party after the date of the said deed." In Pannell v, Smith, 7 H. & J. 202, Chancellor Johnson held, that a mortgagee, claiming under an unregistered mortgage, could not by varying the form of his application to the Court exclude the beneficial savings of the Act in favor of subsequent purchasers and creditors; but that, as to them, the case was to be treated as if the application were to have the mortgage recorded; see Woods v. Fulton, 4 H. & J. 329. He than observed that a mortgage, if recorded under a decree of the Court, would be effectual against all prior claims of creditors who become so after its date and before its record. If a creditor of the latter class obtains a judgment before the record of the instrument, the judgment has priority over the debt secured by, or consid- eration paid for the conveyance. If, however, no liens have been obtained by them, creditors of the latter class and the mortgagee, or grantee, under the instrument share •pari passu. Where judgments are obtained against the grantor for debts prior to the date of the conveyance and also judg- ments for subsequent debts, such judgment creditors, aa between them- selves, are entitled to their liens according to their priority in date. As against the mortgagee, however, those judgments for debts prior to the mortgage give place thereto in the inverse order of their date; but judg- ments for debts contracted subsequent to the mortgage remain unaffected by it. Of course, the recording of the instrument in either of the above ways operates as constructive notice from that time on as against all subsequent purchasers from, or creditors of, the grantor. Such is the construction of the above sections as deduced from the decisions. Brydon v. Campbell, 40 Md. 331; Sixth Ward Asso. v. Willson, 41 Md. 506; Dyson v. Simmons, 48 Md. 207; Pfeaff v. Jones, 50 Md. 263; Stanhope v. Dodge, 52 Md, 483; Reiff v. Eshleman, 52 Md. 582; Cissel v. Henderson, 88 Md. 674; Nally v. Long, 56 Md. 567; Nickel v. Brown, 75 Md. 172; Hoffman v. Gosnell, 75 Md. 677; Economy Bank v. Gordon, 90 Md. 505; Skinner Co. v. Houghton, 92 Md. 86. Cf. Knell v. Bldg. Asso., 34 Md. 67; Carson v. Phelps, 40 Md. 73; Hartsock v, Russell, 52 Md. 619; Applegarth v. Wag- ner, 86 Md. 468. There are some cases which conflict more or less with the law as attempted to be stated above. The decision of one point in the case of Milholland v. Tiffany, 64 Md. 459, is clearly in conflict. In Valentine v. Seiss, 79 Md. 187, the first part of the opinion affirms the general doctrine that a judgment, being but a general lien, is sub- ordinated to the superior equity of a prior specific lien created by a defective mortgage or conveyance, but it makes no reference to the limita- tion upon that doctrine in the case of subsequent creditors, which is the result of the sections of the Code discussed above. The opinion is therefore somewhat perplexing but the decision may easily and satisfactorily rest on any one of the following grounds, to wit: actual notice to the subse- quent creditor of the grantor, possession of the grantee, and lastly that the lien or quasi lien to which a grantor's creditors are entitled by virtue of the Code provisions under discussion is enforceable only in a court of equity. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 564 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