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

INDEX. 557
ASSIGNMENTS IN FAVOR OF CREDITORS.
1. An assignment in favor of creditors, though in other respects free from
objection, must convey all the property of the grantor, and the onus,
in this regard, is upon the party who sets up the deed. Keighler vs.
Nicholson, 86.
2. A deed in favor of creditors, of specific articles of property, and which
does not, by express terms, purport to convey all the property of the
grantor, is not, on that account, absolutely void, but upon proof that
the grantor had no other property, will stand, if its other provisions
are legal, Ib.
3. The adjudicated cases in this state have not decided that an assignment
in favor of creditors, which provides that the dividends of the non-
assenting shall be divided proportionably among the assenting creditors
is void. Ib.
4. It would be irregular to decide upon the validity of such a deed upon
the return of a writ of sequestration to enforce a decree when no such
question was presented in the case in which the decree was obtained,
Ib.
ATTACHMENT.
1. Money in the hands of a trustee of this court is not liable to attach-
ment. Bentley vs. Shrieve, 412.
BILLS OF REVIEW.
1. A bill of review for new facts or newly discovered facts, must aver
that such facts came to the knowledge of the complainant within nine
months prior to the filing of his bill. Hitch vs. Fenby, 190.
Q. Upon a supplemental bill, in the nature of a bill of review, the question
always is, not what the plaintiff knew, but what, using due diligence,
he might have known. It.
BOND OF CONVEYANCE.
See LOCATION OF.
CHOSE IN ACTION.
See SEQUESTRATION, &C., 1, 2, 3.
COMMISSIONS.
See TRUSTEES, &c,, 5.
RECEIVERS, 9, 10.
ORPHANS COURT,11.
AGREEMENTS, &c., 5,6.
CONJUGAL RIGHTS.
See ALIMONY, 6, 7.
CONSIDERATION.
See SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 2, 3.
CONTRACTS, &c., 1.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
1. It is no exercise of judicial power for the legislature to pass resolutions
directing credits to be entered upon judgments recovered by the state
against a county clerk, and the sureties upon his bond. Wm. S.
Green's Estate, 349.
2. The state has control over her own claims, and the legislature may re-
VOL. IV,—47

  		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 557   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