ART. 47] VOLUNTARY APPLICATION. 1205

1904, art. 47, sec. 1. 1888, art. 47, sec. 1. 1860, art. 48, sec. 1. 1854, ch. 193, sec. 1.

1880, ch. 172.

1. Any person being insolvent may apply by petition to the circuit
court for the county where such insolvent resides, or to the court of
common pleas of Baltimore city, if the insolvent resides in the city
of Baltimore, stating that he is insolvent, and offering to deliver up
for the benefit of his creditors all of his property, real and personal,
and exhibiting therewith a schedule of his property, and a list of the
debts due from and owing to him, with the names of his debtors and
creditors, and their respective places of business or residence, so far
as known to the insolvent, all verified by affidavit; and shall annex to
his petition an affidavit that he will deliver up and convey to such
trustee as may be appointed, for the benefit of his creditors, all the
property, estate, rights and claims of every description to which he is
in any manner entitled; the necessary wearing apparel and bedding of
himself and family, and such property as may by law be exempted
from execution, excepted; and that he has not at any time sold, lessened,
transferred or disposed of any part of his money or other property
for the use or benefit of any person, or entrusted any part of his
money or other property, debts, rights or claims thereby intending to
delay or defraud his creditors, or any of them, or to secure the same
so as to receive, or expect to receive any profit, benefit or advantage
himself therefrom; provided, that the said applicant has at no time
within two years previous to said application been discharged under
any insolvent law of this State.

Application and construction of insolvent laws.

State insolvent laws have no extra-territorial effect, and do not bar or dis-
charge the rights or claims of non-residents unless such non-residents partici-
pate In the insolvency proceedings. The adjudication In insolvency is in rem,
and binds all persons whether parties or not, as to the particular matter
decided. Brown v. Smart, 69 Md. 327 (affirmed in 145 U. S. 457). See also,
Glenn v. Clabaugh, 65 Md. 68; Pinckney v. Lanahan, 62 Md. 450; Poe v.
Duck, 5 Md. 6.

As to what acts subject a non-resident to our Insolvent laws, see Jones v.
Horsey, 4 Md. 311; Ensor v. Lewis, 54 Md. 397.

Corporations are not amenable to our Insolvent system, though by article
23, section 377 of the code of 1904 (article 23, section 79 of the Annotated
Code), they are brought within the operation of a provision of that system.
Mowen v. Nitsch, 103 Md. 687. And see State v. Bank of Maryland, 6 G &
J. 221.

The design and remedial nature of insolvent laws discussed. Their con-
struction is similar to that of the bankrupt act. Riley v. Carter, 76 Md. 608
See also, Ziegler v. King, 9 Md. 333; Bank of Westminster v. Whyte, 3 Md.
Ch. 513; Trail v. Snouffer, 6 Md. 318; Waters v. Dashiell, 1 Md. 471; Alex-
ander v. Ghiselin, 5 Gill, 179.

While our insolvent law is construed similarly to the bankrupt law, such
construction does not Justify the expanding of the former. Pfaff v. Prag,
79 Md. 374.

A bankrupt law only suspends the operation of a state insolvent law
from the day the former takes effect. Larrabee v. Talbott, 5 Gill, 441.

The state court considers itself bound by the decisions of the supreme court
of the United States on state insolvent laws. State v. Krebs, 6 H. & J. 31,
note.