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

ANDERSON VS. TYDINGS. 178
which was executed on the 8th of January, 1848, was recorded
on the same day, thus giving constructive notice to all the
world of its contents. It is the case, then, simply of a party
indebted to several, and securing one, of his creditors to the
exclusion of others, a thing which at common law and apart
from the insolvent laws he had a perfect right to do, and which
the preferred creditor had an undoubted right to call upon
him to do. And as soon as the transfer was made the con-
veyance was enrolled among the public records of the county
that all persons having an interest in knowing might be ap-
prised of the condition of the title.
In addition to all this, there is not a particle of evidence
that' either Mrs. Elliott, whose money paid for the property,
or Mrs. Tydings, to whom the conveyance was made, knew of
the indebtedness of .Roger Tydings, to the complainants, with-
out which knowledge there can of course be no. pretence for
imputing to them the design to injure the complainants;
though I am very far from being of opinion that such know-
ledge, even if it existed, would have rendered their conduct in
taking the conveyance iniquitous.
The deed, therefore, in my opinion must be permitted to
stand; and as the complainants can reach Roger Tydings' in-
terest as tenant by the courtesy, by an execution at law (if he
is entitled to such interest), this Court should not interfere
and, grant relief to that extent. The bill, therefore, will be
dismissed.
HENRY M. MURRAY and FRANK H. STOCKETT, for Com-
plainants.
CORNELIUS MCLEAN, for Defendants.

  		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 173   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