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 509   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

CONKLING VS. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY. 509
of the partners, to wit, the corporation, against whom alone,
the judgment under which he purchased was rendered.
As decided by the Court of Appeals in the case of Richard-
son vs. Stillinger, 12 Gill and Johns., 477, 483, the seizure and
sale could only transfer the interest of the defendant, the cor-
poration, at the date of the judgment, and would be subject to
all judgments, liens, and outstanding equities existing against
him anterior to that time. The claim of Dr. Jennings, upon
which this judgment was rendered, and under which Green
purchased, was a claim against the corporation alone, and it
would therefore seem to follow, that even if the contributors
and the corporation can be regarded as partners, that still, as
against them, they being creditors of the partnership for ad-
vances made to it, Green would not be entitled to be pre-
ferred, and especially so as Jennings, under whom he claims,
had actual, as well as constructive, notice of the deed of trust.
The excess of one partner's advances over those, of the other,
constitutes a preferred claim upon the partnership property or
its proceeds, as against the individual creditors of the bank-
rupt partner, and as in this case, the corporation is conceded
to be bankrupt, its individual creditors must give way to the
partner who made the advances. Pierce vs. Tiernan et al., 10
Gill & Johns., 253,
Upon the whol^T am of opinion that these plaintiffs are en-
titled to a decree for a sale, and will so decree, the money to
be distributed among the parties according to the views herein
expressed. If any portion of the claim of Dr. Jennings is for
advances, which will put him, or his assignee. Green, on a foot-
ing of equality in the contribution with the plaintiffs, he will
be allowed to come in with them, and his rights, in that respect,
will be reserved.
CHARLES F. MAYER and JOHN NELSON for Complainants.
J. MASON CAMPBELL, JOHN GLENN and THOMAS G. PRATT
for Defendants.
44*

  		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 509   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