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

FALCONER VS. GRIFFITH. 155
probably introduced in consequence of the decision of the Court
of Appeals in the case of Crawford and Bellman vs. Taylor, 6
G. & J., 323, in which it was held that though the transfer to
the favored creditor may be made with a view and under an ex-
pectation of taking the benefit of the insolvent laws, it will not
be avoided if it was made upon the application of the creditor,
because it could not then be regarded as a voluntary act.
But though the Act of 1845 condemns the transfer, though
made at the request or on the demand of the creditor, it allows
it to stand, unless made with a view and under an expectation
of being and becoming an insolvent debtor and with intent to
prefer, &c., that is, with a view and under an expectation of
taking the benefit of the insolvent law, as required by the Acts
of 1812 and 1816, and therefore is less stringent than the Act
of 1834, which avoids the deed or transfer if the grantor had
no reasonable ground for believing that he could be exempt
from execution or liability for his debts without having re-
course to the insolvent laws. In other words, that in the city
and county of Baltimore the absence of such reasonable ground
for believing he could be exempt from execution or liability
for his debts, would avoid the transfer of the debtor as though
it was made with the direct view of taking the benefit of the
insolvent laws, provided the creditor knew of the insolvent
condition of the debtor.
Conceding then that the plaintiff may call to his aid the
Act of 1845, he must prove that when dark executed the
deed of September, 1850, he intended to take the benefit of
the insolvent laws. Now, in the first place, he has not charged it
in his bill: and if he had, the answer of dark denies expressly
his insolvency at the time of the execution of the conveyance
to Griffith, and attributes it to causes which occurred subse-
quently. There is to be sure evidence that dark was pressed
for money at or about that time to meet his engagements;
but it is altogether insufficient in my judgment to prove that
he intended to take the benefit of the insolvent laws, and that
with that view and under that expectation, and with intent to
prefer Griffith, or the firm of which Griffith was a member, he

  		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 155   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