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 3, Page 107   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

BULLETT VS. WORTHINGTON. 107
perty, shows, I think, not only that enough shall remain to
satisfy his creditors, but that this residuum shall be readily
and conveniently accessible to them, and that they shall not
be exposed to the expense, delay and difficulty of removing
incumbrances from their way. If the remaining property of
the grantor is encumbered, and litigation or difficulties must
be encountered before his creditors can realize their claims,
they are by the voluntary conveyance hindered and delayed.
It cannot be said, under such a state of facts, that the grantor
is in prosperous circumstances and unembarrassed, and the
presumption against the deed for want of valuable considera-
tion will be fatal to it.
I conclude, therefore, that though this Court may not concern
itself with the distribution of the property of the parent among
his children, it will not permit the claims of pre-existing creditors
to be put in jeopardy by a voluntary conveyance from the parent
to his child or children, nor will it suffer a deed of that descrip-
tion to stand, unless it be clearly shown that the grantor had
left to him ample means to discharge all his obligations, but
that these means are unencumbered and readily and conveni-
ently accessible to his creditors. This, I understand, to be
the true doctrine upon the subject, as it now stands, divested
of much of the rigor of the earlier cases, and especially of
the case of Keade vs. Livingston, before referred to, and it
becomes, therefore, necessary to inquire whether the deeds of
the 25th of March, 1825, and the 16th of June, 1825, the
latter having been executed, to cure some supposed defect, in
the former, can receive the sanction of this Court when brought
to the test of the principle as now understood.
It.has been strenuously and forcibly urged by the counsel
for the defendant, Samuel Worthington, that his title to the
land conveyed by these deeds does not depend upon the con-
dition of the affairs of Walter Worthington at the date of
their execution, but that the question to be decided depends
upon his situation-in the year, 1817, when the grantor pur-
chased the lands from Mr. Emory, and when he gave his son
a verbal promise that he would purchase a farm for him and

  		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 3, Page 107   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