INDEX. 561

DEEDS VOID UNDER THE INSOLVENT LAWS—Continued.

tent thereby, to give an undue and improper preference to such credi-
tor, then such payment and transfer are void under the provisions of
our insolvent system. Hi.

G. The distinction recognised in England between voluntary or involuntary
transfers, are applicable to our insolvent system, and to avoid such
transfers for fraud upon that system, they must be shown to be volw»r
tary, as well as made with a view and under an expectation of taking
the benefit of the insolvent laws. Ib.

7. 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 transfer whether made upon request or not. 2d, No such trans-
fer could be made in favor of one creditor to the prejudice of the rest,
if the debtor making it shall have no reasonable expectation of being
exempted from liability or execution on account of his debts, without
applying for the benefit of the insolvent laws. Ib.

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

See PART PERFORMANCE, 5.

DEMURRER.

1. Upon a demurrer to a bill, because it sought to compel the defendants
to a disclosure of their titles. The title of the plaintiff not appearing
to be at all dependent upon or connected with that of the defendant,
the demurrer was ruled good. Cullison-vs. Bossom, 95.

2. Allowing a demurrer to a whole bill, in strictness, puts it out of court,
and no subsequent proceedings can be taken in the cause; yet the
court has sometimes permitted an amendment to the bill to be made.
Ib.
See DISCOVERT OF TITLE, 1, 3.

PRACTICE IN CHANCERY, 5.
DEVISE.

See WILL AND TESTAMENT.

DISCOVERY OF TITLE.

1. Upon a demurrer to a bill because it sought to compel the defendants to
a disclosure of their titles, it was HELD—
That the right of a plaintiff in equity to the benefit of the defend-
ant's oath, is limited to a discovery of such material facts as re-
late to the plaintiff's case, and does not extend to a discovery of
the manner in which, or the means by which, the defe-.dant's
case is to be established. CuUtson vs. Bossom, 95.

2. Where there is a privity shown to exist between the title of the plaintiff
and defendant, that privity may give him the right to call for an ex-
posure of the defendant's title; but unless such connection is shown,