| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 562 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
562 INDEX- CONSTRUCTION OF ACTS AND STATUTES.— Continues. and the intent of the testator being manifest upon the face of the will that the land should not pass, the Act of 1825, ch. 119, does not apply. Boyle vs. Barker, 42. 3. That Act applies to devises of lands or real property in general terms, without words of perpetuity, or limitation, and gives the entire estate and interest of the testator, unless by devise over, or by words of limita- tion or otherwise, a contrary intention is indicated. Ib. 4. Mere petulance and rudeness, and sallies of passion, are not sufficient to constitute "cruelty of treatment," within the meaning of the Act of 1841, ch. 263; there must be a series of acts of personal violence' or danger of life, limb, or health, to authorize a divorce a mensa, Bowic vs. Bowic.5l. 5. The Act of 1785, ch. 72, which authorizes the real estate of a deceased debtor to be sold to pay his debts, when the personalty is insufficient, does not require that such debtor should die seized of the real estate pro- posed to be sold; the words of the Act are, if he "shall leave real estate which descends," &c. Robertson vs. Parks, 65. 6. Though the Act of 1841, ch. 163, does not apply to the Court of Chan- cery, or require objections to the jurisdiction to be made at any particular stage of the case, yet its policy and the manifest justice of the provision, may have influence when a question not free from difficulty is presented. Goitgh vs. Crane, 119. 7. Under the Act of 1841, ch. 262, and its supplements, alimony is an inci- dent to the power of granting divorces, and cannot be awarded to the wife except as a consequence of the exercise of such power. Dunnock vs. Dunnock, 140. 8. But the Act of 1777, ch. 12, sec. 14, giving the Chancellor as fall authority in cases of alimony as the Ecclesiastical Courts have in England, is not repealed by the Act of 1841, ch. 262. Jo. 9. The Act of 1841, ch. 163, is confined in its operation to the Appellate Court, and the Court of Chancery may, iua sponte, refuse relief if it ap- pear from the proceedings that it has no jurisdiction, though the defen- dant does not make the objection by the pleadings. Ib. 10. To avoid a deed under the Insolvent Acts of 1812, ch. 77, and 1816, ch. 221, it is not enough that the grantee was insolvent at the date of its ex- ecution, and that the grantee knew of such insolvency; but it is indis- pensable that the undue preference should be given " with a view, or under an expectation at the time, of taking the benefit of the insolvent laws." Falconer vs. Griffith, 151. 11. The 1st sec. of the Act of 1834, ch. 293, is local in its operation, and con- fined to the City and County of Baltimore, and its proviso prevents its application to cases where the grantee had not notice of the insolvent condition of the grantor. Ib. 12. The 2d sec. of the Act of 1845, ch. 139, condemns transfers though made at the request or on the demand of the creditor; but allows them to stand, unless made with a view and under an expectation of taking the benefit of the insolvent laws, as required by the Acts of 1812 and 1816; and where this intent is denied by the answer, the plaintiff must prove it. It. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 562 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