MALCOM VS. HALL. 173

Yet, if such payment or transfer be made with a view, or under an expectation,
of taking the benefit of the insolvent laws, and with an intent thereby to give
an undue and improper preference to such creditor, then, such payment and
transfer are void under the provisions of our insolvent system.
The distinctions recognised in England between voluntary and involuntary trans-
fers, are applicable to our insolvent system, and to avoid such transfers, for
fraud upon that system, they must be shown to be volwntary, as well as
made with a view and under an expectation of taking the benefit of the in-
solvent laws.

The act of 1834, ch. 293, effected two alterations in the system, so far as the
city and county of Baltimore are concerned. 1st, It invalidated the trans-
fer, whether made upon request or not. 2d, No such transfer could be made
in favor of one creditor to the prejudice of the rest, if the debtor making it
shall have had no reasonable expectation of being exempted from liability or
executionfor, or on account of, his debts, without applying for the benefit of
the insolvent laws.

Yet, under this act, there must be found, in the transfer or assignment, an in-
tention to prefer one creditor over another; or, notwithstanding, the party
had no reasonable expectation of escaping a recourse to the insolvent laws
for relief, the transfer or aBBignmp.nt. will stand, and as the deed in this case
made no such preference, it was held valid.

[This case was commenced on the equity side of Baltimore
County Court, and removed to this court.

The bill stated, that on the 30th April, 1847, Henry Keene,
of Baltimore city, being in insolvent circumstances, and in con-
templation of applying for the benefit of the insolvent laws, as-
signed, by deed of that date, all his property, of every descrip-
tion, to the defendant, to be by him applied to the payment of
the insolvent's debts; first deducting therefrom a commission
of eight per cent. for himself, and his expenses. That, on the
7th of May, following, Keene applied for, and obtained, the
benefit of the insolvent laws, and the complainant was duly ap-
pointed his permanent trustee. And, that the defendant has
refused to deliver said property to the complainant, though re-
quested so to do. The bill prayed, that a decree might be
passed, setting aside the deed of assignment, as fraudulent, and
requiring the property to be delivered to the complainant.
The answer of Hall, denied that the deed was made in contem-
plation of applying for the benefit of the insolvent laws, said
application only having been made in consequence of a refusal
l5*