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

90 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
property assigned by it to the trustee, to the claims of the com-
plainants under the proceedings in this case.
The deed is of certain specific parcels of property, being
four policies of insurance, and the moneys demandable under
them. It does not upon its face purport to convey the whole
of the property of the grantor, nor does it profess to be only
of a part. These policies may or may not have constituted all
his property, and therefore assuming that deeds of this charac-
ter are void unless they embrace all the property of the debtor,
there is nothing upon the face of this instrument which, by
construction of law absolutely condemns it. Looking to the
cases of Green and Trammell vs. Trieber, 8 Md. Rep., 11, and
Sangston vs. Gaither, ib., 40, it can no longer be a question in
this state, that a deed made by a debtor for the benefit of his
creditors requiring releases, even though in other respects free
from objection, must convey all the property of the debtor, and
a reference to the case last referred to, will show that the onus
in this regard is upon the party who sets up the deed.
The deed in Sangston vs. Gaither, like that in this case, was
of certain specified property. It was not apparent upon its face
whether it did or did not convey the whole of the grantor's
property, and the court say, that question is left in doubt by the
case stated, and I think it ia quite manifest that if it could have
been shown, dehors, the deed that the property conveyed by it
constituted the whole estate of the grantor, and there had been
nothing objectionable in its trusts, it would have been maintained
as a valid instrument. But the deed in Sangston vs. Gaither
was pronounced to be void, not merely or principally because it
was not shown to embrace the whole property of the grantor,
but 'because of its reservations for the use and benefit of the
grantor himself.
It, therefore, appears to me that though the deed in this case
is of specific articles of property, and does not, by its express
terms, purport to convey all the property of Betts, it is not on
that account absolutely void, but upon proof that the grantor
had no other property, it would stand if its other provisions
are legal.

  		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 90   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