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

DUNNNOCK VS. DUNNOCK. 14S
ad a bona fide and valid instrument, every allegation affecting
its fairness being peremptorily denied; the answer averring
that the respondent at the time of its execution gave the
grantee his bill, obligatory for the amount of the purchase-
money, of which he has since paid eight hundred dollars, and
that he is ready and willing to pay the balance due thereon
whenever lawfully required so to do.
The question, therefore, is not simply whether this com-
plainant is entitled to a decree for alimony, or a separate
maintenance out of her husband's estate, but the Court is called
upon as a preliminary question to decide whether the impeached
deed is fraudulent or not. No case has been cited, nor have
my researches enabled me to find one, in which the Court when
applied to to decree a separate maintenance to the wife, has
engaged in an investigation into the character of alienations
of property made by the husband, so as in effect to compel the
husband's alienee to pay the allowance to the wife, which is
precisely the object and prayer of this bill.
The wife under certain circumstances is entitled to alimony,
or a separate maintenance, to be paid by the husband or out of
his estate. Helms vs. Franciscus, 2 Bland, 568; Ball vs.
Montgomery, 2 Ves, Jr., 195; Duncan vs. Duncan, 19 Ves.,
395; Mix vs. Mix, 1 Johns. Oh. Rep., 110. The decree of
the County Court in the case of Wallingsford vs. Wallings-
ford, 6 H. & J, 485, was reversed upon the ground in part
that it did not direct an income to be paid for the maintenance
of the wife out of the husband's estate, and that it did not
create a personal liability in the husband to pay any sum of
money.
The deed in this case is vindicated against the attack made
upon it by the bill, upon the ground that it was executed for a
bond fide and valuable consideration, and with no intent to
defraud the complainant, or any Other person or persons, of
their just rights; and a number of witnesses have been exa-
mined on the part of the complaint, to prove by the declara-
tions of the defendant, Samuel Dunnock, that the consideration
•was not paid. I do not, however, consider it necessary to
examine into and decide upon the sufficiency of this evidence

  		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 145   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