| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 170 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
170 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. the prejudice of others; nor could it be assailed on any such ground because Tydings the debtor has not in fact applied for release under the insolvent laws, and there is no person in existence who can impeach his acts as in violation of them. If, therefore, the deed in this case can be successfully at- tacked, it must be upon the ground, that either at common law or under the provisions of the statute of 13 Elizabeth, ch. 5, it is void, as having been made to delay, hinder, and defraud credi- tors. The allegation of the bill is " that said deed was con- cocted and executed with the sole view and purpose of cheating and defrauding the complainants of their claims against said Tydings, and hindering, delaying, and embarrassing them and his other creditors in the collection of their debts," &c. Had this deed been a voluntary one, founded merely upon natural love and affection, it could not possibly be allowed to stand in the way of the creditors of the husband, as the agree- ment filed on the 26th of July last shows that he had no other property from which the claims of his creditors could be satis- fied. It would, therefore, upon the most indulgent view of the statute, or of the common law, be fraudulent and void as to creditors, and would unhesitatingly be set aside at their instance. But the answers take the position, and the evidence main- tains it, that this deed rests upon a valuable consideration; that is, that it was caused to be executed by the party having the equitable title in satisfaction of a debt due from him, of an amount equivalent to the value of the property. It is said, however, that this evidence is inadmissible, because the deed purports upon its face to have been executed for the considera- tion of the sum of one hundred and forty-four dollars paid by the grantee to the grantors; and that it being shown that no such sum was paid by the former, it is not competent to sup- port the deed by proof of the consideration relied upon in the answers. The consideration stated in the deed was, however, paid to the grantor by Tydings the husband, and, therefore, being founded upon a moneyed consideration it is good as a deed of bargain and sale. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 170 View pdf image (33K) |
|
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.
Maryland State Archives