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

480 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
plainants were not his creditors at the time, but their claims
were contracted and created long since the execution of the
same, and he insists that said deed is perfectly legal and
valid, and nowise fraudulent as against the complainants, or
any one else.]
THE CHANCELLOR :
Upon a careful examination of the proceedings in this case,
and reading and considering the arguments of the counsel for
the parties, I am of opinion that the deed of trust of the 2d of
June, 1842, from Henry Hook to James H. Miller, is fraudu-
lent and void against the creditors of the grantor, either exist-
ing or subsequent.
It has been frequently decided, and is the undisputed law,
that a conveyance is void as against creditors under the statute
of 13 Elizabeth, ch. 5, unless it be made upon a good conside-
ration, and bona fide, and authorities are abundant, to show
that though a voluntary conveyance, made by a person not in-
debted at the time, cannot be impeached by subsequent creditors
upon the mere ground of its being voluntary, yet if it be
shown to have been made with a fraudulent intent, or with a
view to future debts, it may be successfully assailed by such
subsequent creditors. Sexton vs. Wheaton, 8 Wheaton's Rep.,
229.
The deed impeached by the bill in this case ia not simply a
post nuptial settlement by the husband upon the wife, which
would be good as to subsequent creditors, provided there, was
no fraudulent intent, or it was not made with a view to future
debts. The deed here is supposed to be fraudulent and void
as to creditors, both prior and subsequent, because of the trusts
in it in favor of the grantor, and the authorities seem to me
fully to establish the proposition for which they were cited by
the complainant's counsel.
The case of Taylor vs. Jones, 2 Atk,, 600, and Ford vs.
Caldwell, 3 Hill, S. 0. Rep; 242, seem to be conclusive against
the validity of such deeds as the present, with reference to the
subsequent as well as prior creditors.

  		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 480   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