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 4, Page 413   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

BENTLEY VS. SHRIEVE. 413
Upon theae facts, the question submitted by the trustee and
the attorney of Ramey was, whether Knox was entitled, by vir-
tue of the deed to him, to the proportion of the fund awarded
to Harding, or whether Ramey, by virtue of his writ of attach-
ment, will be entitled to it. Upon this question the Chancellor
delivered the following opinion.]
THE CHANCELLOR :
The agreement in this case, is not signed by, or on behalf of
Knox, the trustee, in the deed of Harding and wife, dated 2d
of September, 1847, and, therefore, it might be premature and
irregular to pass an order disposing finally of the question sub-
mitted for my opinion.
I have, however, read the agreement, and am of opinion, that
the attachment issued by Bamey, and laid in the hands of the
trustee, Alexander Kilgour, cannot be maintained.
In the case of the Farmers Bank of Delaware vs. Beaston,
7 G. & J., 421, it was decided that money or property in the
hands of receivers appointed by this court could not be attached,
though the simple fact that receivers had been appointed and
given bond would not protect it. The exemption of property
in the possession of a receiver from attachment, is also under-
stood to have been decided by the Circuit Court of the United
States for this District.
But if property in the hands of a receiver is not liable to
attachment, it is not perceived upon what ground money held
by a trustee of this court can be reached in that way. The
trustee is the officer of the court, and money in his hands is
under its protection and subject to be disposed of by its owner.
I consider the principles announced by the Court of Appeals
in the case referred to, are decisive so far as the rights of the
attaching creditor are concerned, and I can see no reason why
the deed of trust to Thomas P. Knox should not be allowed to
operate upon the fund in question in the hands of the trustee.
MCLEAN, for the Trustee.
A. RANDALL, for Bamey.

  		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 4, Page 413   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  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives