| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 564 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
564 INDEX. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES—Continued. fieri facias property was to be reached; yet, there are gome exceptions to the rule. Ib.. 3; The cast of a guardian suing in behalf of his wards, who is the surety on the bond given by the former guardian, and therefore cannot him- self maintain an action at law, or the bond might possibly be regarded as constituting such an exception to the rule. Ib. 4. But the act of 1835, ch. 380, sec. 2, expressly exempts creditors from the obligation to obtain judgments, before they can proceed, in equity, to vacate fraudulent conveyances. Jo. 5. The conveyances, in this case, were vacated upon proof that they em- braced all the grantor's property, real and personal; that they were made to his daughter, wh6 never did, and never could, have paid the consideration expressed in them; that at the time of executing them, he was greatly in debt, and shortly afterwards applied for the benefit of the insolvent laws, returning no property in his schedule; and that the whole transaction was a scheme to defraud his creditors. Jo. 6. To render an assignment valid under the 13th of Elizabeth, it is not enough to show that it was made for a valuable consideration, for that alone is not sufficient, it must also be bona fide. Powles vs. Dilley ,119. ^. It is well established, that by the common law, a debtor may secure one creditor, to the exclusion of others, either by payment or a bona fide transfer of his property. Ib. 8. The transfer to a favored creditor, to be void under our insolvent sys- tem, must be made with a view, or under an expectation, of taking the benefit of the insolvent laws, and also with intent thereby to give him an undue and improper preference—both interests must be found to exist, or the transfer will not be disturbed. Ib. 9. The intent may be deduced, as in other cases, from facts and circum- stances, but these must be such as, by fair inference, will bring the mind to the conclusion that the unlawful intent existed. Ib. 10. The circumstances of this case, distinguished from those of Dittany vs. Hoffman, Gill & Johns., 107. /6. 11. Whether a conveyance is fraudulent or not, under the statute of 13 Elizabeth, ch. 5, depends upon its being made upon a good considera- tion and bona fide. It is not sufficient that it is upon a good considera- tion or bona fide. It must be both, and' if not, is void as to creditors, and the words "good consideration," in the statute, must be under- stood to include valuable, as well as good. Glenn vs. Randall, 220. 12. Where deeds are impeached for fraud, and it is shown by the admis- sions of the answers, that the considerations upon which they profess to have been executed, were not paid in the manner and form, as de- clared upon their face, the party claiming under them will not be per- mitted to prove any other consideration in their support. Ib. 13. But this rule does not apply to a case where the object is not to set up any other additional consideration to the one mentioned in the deed, but to prove that that very consideration was paid, not to the grantor him- self, but to his creditors, with his knowledge and at his request. Ib. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 564 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