| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 350 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
350 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. The object of the bill is to vacate three conveyances exe- cuted by Mrs. Ann Watson to the defendants. The two first are dated respectively on the 11th of July and 22d of August, 1843, to Hugh McNeal, the son of the grantor, and the last on the 20th of March, 1845, to Joseph D. Worley. These deeds are assailed as void, under our insolvent system, and as fraudu- lent and void at common law, and under the statute of Eliza- beth. With regard to those to the son of the grantor, I am satis- fied that they cannot be supported against the claims of credi- tors. I am aware that the answers assert the bona fides of these deeds, but the proof, in my judgment, is quite sufficient to overthrow the answers. The deed of the 11th of July conveys to the grantee, for the consideration of $404, as therein expressed, a term for years in a house and lot in the city of Baltimore. This property, on the 12th of the preceding month, had been conveyed to the grantor, by Mr. Griffith, for the same consideration; but the grantor, before her conveyance to her son, had put repairs upon it to the amount of $815 84, as proved by Mr. Earickeon, the carpenter by whom this work was done. Assuming, therefore, that the money consideration expressed in the deed was paid, it was totally inadequate to the value of the property, and would excite strong suspicions of unfairness. To obviate this, the defendant has examined the grantor her- self, and she proves, that at the time of the sale to her son, the bill of repairs had not come in, and that she was to pay it, with- out charging it to her son, for his services, as a salesman in the store, for more than two years. Now, viewing Mrs. Watson as a competent witness, and I am disposed so to regard her, the question arises whether this proof is admissible in support of the deed ? I think it is not. It is clear, upon the authority of the case of Cole vs. Albers & Runge, 1 Gill, 412, and all the preceding cases on the subject, that if it had been proposed to prove that the entire considera- tion of the deed had been services rendered the grantor,, and that no money bad passed, it would have been inadmissible, because |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 350 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