| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 287 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
GILL VS. GRIFFITH AND 8CHLEY. 287 ture has changed the law with regard to the registration of deeds of conveyances of real estate, giving, by the first sec- tion of the act of 1825, ch. 203, a preference to that deed which shall be first recorded according to law, over deeds sub- sequently recorded, and by the act of 1831, chapter 304, author- ized the recording of deeds at any time, except deeds of mort- gage, and giving effect, to a certain extent, to deeds so re- corded. The law-making power, seems never to have modi- fied, in any respect, the act of 1729, to prevent secret sales, mortgages and gifts, of goods and chattels, of which the vendor, mortgagor, or donor, should remain in possession, but these have continued exposed to the stern, but, in my judgment, wholesome provisions of that act. In the case of Hambleton vs. Hayward, 4 Har. and Johns., 443, the Court of Appeals said, by the act in question, it was intended that speedy information should be given to every per- son, of any transfer of personal property, where the party trans- ferring retained the possession, and that such possession, un- less the deed was acknowledged and recorded of itself, as to creditors and subsequent purchasers, defeated the first convey- ance. Such has been the uniform language of the courts, the only qualification to it being, that when actual notice can be traced to the subsequent creditors and purchasers, the object of the statute is attained, and a literal compliance with its lan- guage as to them need not be insisted upon. Dorsey vs. Smith- son, 6 Har. and Johns., 61; Clary vs. Prayer, 8 Gill and Johns., 398; Byer vs. Etuyre and Besore, 2 Gill, 151. In view of these legislative provisions, and the repeated de- cisions of our courts upon the subject, all concurring to show the indispensable necessity of giving publicity to transactions like the present, it seems to me to be impossible, to sanction the course adopted by these defendants, with regard to this bill of sale. If such an instrument may be renewed for one year, it may be for twenty, during all which time the mortgagor, being in possession, is the apparent owner, and is dealt with and trusted as such, whilst the actual ownership is elsewhere, and this la- |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 287 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