| Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 22 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
22 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. at the time of the insolvent condition of Thomas. It is to be observed, that actual notice must be brought home to Jerome, derived from a knowledge of the condition of Thomas, and not a mere technical or constructive notice. This is the construc- tion put by the Court of Appeals upon the Act of Assembly in question, in the case of Cole vs. Alters & Kunge, 1 G-ill, 412, and of course this Court, if disposed so to do, is not at liberty to construe it differently. The bill here charges that the transfer to Jerome was made after Thomas was insolvent, and after Jerome was aware of his insolvency; and one of the special interrogatories is framed with a view to extract from him his knowledge in regard to the condition of the affairs of Thomas at the time of the proposi- tion to assign for the benefit of all the creditors, or before or afterwards. The answer of Jerome admits that Thomas, about September, 1848, called on him, and made the proposition re- ferred to, which he assented to, Thomas then assuring him that he was able to pay all his creditors in full, and that the re- spondent did not know or believe that Thomas was insolvent, or unable to pay his debts. Again, "respondent admits that Thomas failed in his business, but expressly denies that at the time he received the money and effects from said Thomas, as above stated, that he knew or believed that he was insolvent, or contemplated applying for the benefit of the insolvent laws;" and this denial is afterwards repeated, in a subsequent part of the answer, in terms equally explicit. Now notwithstanding the ingenious and plausible views which have been pressed upon me by the counsel for the com- plainant, I cannot bring myself to believe that the defendant, Mr. Jerome, did know what upon the solemn sanction of an oath he says he did not know. If, to be sure, there was evi- dence in opposition to the answer, which, according to the well- settled rule of this Court, would be sufficient to discredit it, it would have to give way to the evidence, and a decree against him would pass accordingly. But I do not find in the record that description of proof. In the language of the Court of Appeals, in Cole vs. Albers & Runge, " we have no |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 4, Page 22 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