MALCOM VS. HALL. 175

construction referred to, has been put upon those acts by the
Court of Appeals, as appears by the case of Hickley vs.
Farmers and Merchants Bank, 5 G. & J., 377, and other
cases.

It has been decided, that the distinctions, which have been
recognised in England, between voluntary and involuntary
transfers, are applicable to our insolvent system, and that, con-
sequently, when a transfer by a debtor to his creditor is sought
to be avoided as a fraud upon the system, it must be shown,
not only that the transfer was made with a view, and under an
expectation of taking the benefit of the insolvent law, but that
it was likewise voluntary. And that a transfer could not be
considered voluntary, which was made to a man demanding
payment. Orawfords and Sellman vs. Taylor, 6 G. & J;, 323.

Such was the state of the law in Maryland, when the act of
1834, chap. 293, was passed, being a supplement to the insolv-
ent laws, relating to the city and county of Baltimore, the
first section of which provides, "that all conveyances, assign-
ments, sales, deliveries, payments, conversions, or dispositions
of property or estate, real, personal or mixed, debts, rights, or
claims, or confessions of judgment, that shall be made, or
caused, or allowed to be made, whether upon request or other-
wise, by any applicant, to or in favor, or with a view to the
advantage or security of, and with. intent to prefer any creditor
or creditors, security or securities of such applicant, when such
applicant shall have had no reasonable expectation of being
exempted from liability, or execution for, or on account of his
debts, without applying for the benefit of the insolvent laws as
aforesaid, shall be deemed within the meaning and effect of the
sixth section of the act to which this is a supplement, to have
been made with a view or under an expectation on the part of
the applicant, of being or becoming an insolvent debtor, and
with intent thereby to give an undue and improper prefer-
ence.

This act of the legislature was passed shortly after the de-
cision of the Court of Appeals, in the case ofCrawfords and Sell-
man vs. Taylor, and it is by no means a violent supposition,