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 2, Page 392   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

393 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
the creditors of the grantor, and yet the plea of limitations was
allowed to avail those of the parties claiming under those deeds,
who relied upon it. The only difference between that case and
this, is, that there the deeds were made to the son and daugh-
ter of the grantor who may not have participated in the fraud.
But that circumstance, it appears to me, cannot vary the prin-
ciple. The deeds are adjudged to be fraudulent, as against the
creditors of the grantor, and I can conceive of no reason, why
a fraud, in which both grantor and grantee co-operate, shall
not be within the statute of limitations, whilst a fraud, perpe-
trated by the grantor alone, shall be. The effect upon the cred-
itors is precisely the same, and the fraud cannot be more se-
verely condemned in the one case than the other.
I will, therefore, sign a decree vacating the deed of the 16th
of February, 1844, and directing the equity of redemption to
be sold, for the payment of the claim of Sarah Ann Twist
for $1,100, founded upon the note of Elizabeth Osborne, dated
6th of November, 1843, and the claims of such other of the
creditors of the said Elizabeth Osborne, as may come in and
establish their claims. The decree will reserve for further di-
rections the question in relation to the claim of Sarah Ann
Twist, upon the note for $2,800, dated 21st of October, 1844,
payable twelve months after date. The evidence shows that
Elizabeth Osborne removed to New York in November, 1844,
before the note matured, and there are no facts in the cause
from which it can be fairly inferred, that she could ever have
been sued in Maryland upon that note. Indeed, if it be true
that she died in April, 1845, and there has been no administra-
tion on her estate, limitations could never have commenced to
run against this claim. The bill, as to the other complainants,
will be dismissed.
JOHN GLENN, CHARLES H. PITTS and S. T. WALLIS for
Complainants.
WM. H. COLLINS, THOS. S. ALEXANDER and WM. P.
PRESTON for Defendant.

  		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 2, Page 392   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  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives