clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 1, Page 538   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

538 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

the permanent trustee, to set aside the transfer as fraudulent in
view of the insolvent laws; and the answer of the defendant,
Fisher, was filed on the 29th of June following.

In October, 1848, a sale was made of said stalls by John
Fisher, cashier of the said bank, to one David C. Steiner, and
an order to the market master for the delivery of one of the
said stalls given to said Steiner.

On the 21st of October, 1848, upon a bill filed by the trus-
tee, Whyte, for that purpose, an order was passed granting an
injunction against the said Fisher and Steiner, and the market
master, commanding them to refrain from interfering in any
way with said property, until the further order of the court.

Upon the motion to dissolve the injunction granted upon the
bill of (he Bank of Westminster, the Chancellor said :]

THE CHANCELLOR:

These cases have been argued together, and are so con-
nected, as in the view. of the^bunsel and the court, to consti-
tute but one suit.

The pecuniary interest involved is inconsiderable, but the
questions which the case present are aot unimportant,

The general rule is too firmly established to be questioned,
that no matter how absolute a conveyance may be on its face,
if the intention is to take a security for a subsisting debt, or
for money lent, the transaction will be regarded as a mortgage,
and will be treated as such. Hicks vs. Hicks, 5 Gill & Johns.,
75; Dougherfy vs. McColgan, 6 G. & J.) 275.

And though the defeasance was by an agreement resting in
parol, still, as between the parties, the deed, though absolute on
its face, will be considered a mortgage, for parol evidence is
admissible to show that an absolute conveyance was intended
as a mortgage, and that the defeasance was omitted or de-
stroyed by fraud or mistake. 2 Kent's Corn,., 142,143; Hender-
son vs. Mayhew et al., 2 Gill, 393.

But it is likewise undeniably true, that unless accident,
fraud, or mistake, can be shown, or in cases of trusts, parol
evidence cannot either at law or in equity, "be admitted to



 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 1, Page 538   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


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.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives