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

154 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
actual notice at the date of the deed of the insolvent condition
of the grantor; The bill avers that Griffith and dark both
knew at that time that the latter was insolvent; but this aver-
ment is denied in the answers of both the defendants, in the
most unequivocal and positive terms. That of Griffith " de-
nies that he knew or had any reason to suspect at the time or
before the execution of said deed, nor until some time there-
after, that Clark was insolvent and unable to pay his debts;
but on the contrary, he avers that at and before the execution
of the deed and for some time thereafter, he believed he was
able to pay his debts and have a considerable surplus of pro-
perty." And in opposition to this flat denial there is not, so
far as Griffith is concerned, any evidence whatever. Circum-
stances have been relied upon, to be sure, in the argument to
prove that some one of the members of the firm of Kramer,
Mantz & Co., knew that Clark was in embarrassed circum-
stances; but there is nothing to show, or from which it can be
fairly inferred against the positive denials of the answers, that
Griffith was that person. The bill does not rely upon the
knowledge of the firm, but upon the knowledge of Griffith. It
charges such knowledge and collusion between him and dark
to procure the preference to the firm and to Griffith, and being
met by the positive contradiction of the answer, relief can only
be granted upon proof sufficient according to the law of the
Court to overthrow the answer.
Looking to the pleadings and evidence in the case the plain-
tiff appears to me to have no ground to stand upon, if his title
to relief depends upon the 1st section of the Act of 1834, ch.
293. But it is supposed he may call to his aid the Act of
1845, ch. 139. The 1st section of that Act, it is very clear,
does not extend to the city of Baltimore; and I incline to
think the 2d section is equally inapplicable. But suppose it be
otherwise, the complainant's case is not improved by it. The
2d section of the Act does not alter the provisions of the Acts
of 1812, ch. 77, sec. 1, and 1816, ch. 221, sec. 6, except that
it declares the preference shall not be saved because made "at
the earnest request, &c., of the creditor;" a provision being

  		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 154   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