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

ANDERSON VS. TYDINGS.- 169
ance was with the consent of respondent, and with the know-
ledge of his wife. He has, therefore, ever considered his wife
as a purchaser for a full consideration, for he alleges that the
said lot and improvements were certainly not worth at that
time more than the debt due to Mrs. Elliott, if as much.
He denies all fraud, or fraudulent purpose or intent; avers
that he was perfectly willing to have conveyed the lot to the
Nicholsona, in payment of his debt to them, and Agreed to
have it conveyed to his wife, in payment of said Nicholsons'
debt to Mrs. Elliott, just as he would have agreed if she had
demanded it, to convey the same to her. That he considered
himself as paying a just debt to Mrs. Elliott, and on her agree-
ing to the conveyance to his wife, he did not consider his situa-
tion, purpose, or act, in any way altered or changed.
He admits that he did pay to Beard the purchase-money
with his own labor and money, and built the improvements
thereon in the same manner; and that his wife paid no part of
the same, except in the manner above stated; that he has
never exercised any control over said property, except with the
consent and approbation of his wife, as her mother's money
was applied to the purchase thereof. He admits that he has
no property, except a very small amount of furniture, worth
about $10.
Proof was then taken, the purport of which is sufficiently
stated in the opinion of the Chancellor.]
THE CHANCELLOR:
The principle of course is not, and cannot be, disputed, that
at common law, and independent of our insolvent laws, a
debtor may secure one creditor to the exclusion of others,
either by payment or a bona fide transfer of' his property,
Hickley vs. The Farmers and, Merchants' Bank, 5 G. & J.,
877; Cole vs. Albers and Runge, 1 Gill, 412.
The deed in this case is not assailed upon the ground that
it was made, or caused to be made, under an expectation of
taking the benefit of the insolvent laws, and with intent thereby
to give an undue and improper preference to one creditor to

  		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 169   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  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives