| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 283 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
GILL VS. GRIFFITH AND SCHLEY. 283 purpo,se not abandoned until-warned by one of the sufferers, that the very thing had happened which might, and would probably, to a considerable extent have been avoided, if there had been no attempt to evade the salutary provisions of these laws. Chancellor Kent in more than one instance denounces these concealments. He says, in the case of Hildreth vs. Sands, 8 Johns., Ch. Sep., 35, that a deed not at first fraudulent, may afterwards become so by being concealed, or not pursued by means of which creditors are drawn in to lend their money. And in Wendall vs. Van Rensellear, I Johns. Ch. Rep., 353, he adjudged a deed to be void, because, it was carefully con- cealed from the knowledge of the world, by which means, false colors were held out to the world, and the public were permitted to consider the property as belonging to the grantor, and to treat with him as the absolute owner. Nothing seems to me more plainly sanctioned by the princi- ples of equity, than that a man should not only be responsible for the direct effects of his acts, but likewise for all the conse- quences which may naturally and reasonably be expected to flow from them, and that nothing can be more natural and reasonable than that injurious consequence's will flow from per- mitting the title in property to be in one, whilst all the visible evidences of ownership are in another, without the existence of any authentic memorial to inform the public who have only appearances to guide them, that these visible manifestations of ownership are not to be relied upon. These are the false col- ors of which Chancellor Kent speaks, and it was to prevent their exhibition, so full of deceit to the public, that our registra- tion laws were passed. Before adverting to them, briefly, it may not be out of place to remark, that Mr. Griffith attempts in his answer to excuse himself for not putting these deeds on record properly, by say- ing, that he had no such knowledge of Mr. Schley's affairs until the 18th of June, 1846, as induced him to suppose that injury was likely to result to the public from his omission to do so. In reply to this, it may be said, that there was abundant evi- |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 2, Page 283 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