1212 INSOLVENTS. [ART. 47

A discharge can not be inquired into collaterally. The county court or
a judge thereof in recess, may grant a discharge, etc., and the proceeding is
pending from the time the application is presented to him. Bowie v. Jones,
1 Gill, 208.

The fact that a deed in the nature of a mortgage provides for the pay-
ment of debts barred by a discharge in insolvency, does not render such deed
fraudulent in fact. Wilson v. Russell, 13 Md. 528.

An agreement by petitioning creditors that they will not object to the
insolvent's discharge can have no effect on other creditors. Gottschalk v.
Smith, 74 Md. 564.

As to the revival of a debt barred by a discharge in insolvency, see Knight
v. House, 29 Md. 200; B. & O. R. B. Co. v. Clark, 19 Md. 519; Katz v. Moore,
13 Md. 569; Wilson v. Russell, 13 Md. 528.

The application of this section to a vendor's lien, discussed. Wlllis v.
Wright, 22 Md. 379.

The policy of the insolvent laws with reference to a discharge. Baylies v.
Bllicott, 9 Gill, 454.

For cases apparently now inapplicable to this section because of changes
in the law, see Relief Bldg Assn. v. Schmidt, 55 Md. 99; State v. Reaney, 13
Md. 238; Glenn v. Karthaus, 4 G. & J. 392; Haddens v. Chambers, 2 Dall. 236.

Cited but not construed in Becker v. Whitehill, 55 Md. 574.

See sections 7, 21 and 27 and notes.

1904, art. 47, sec. 6. 1888, art. 47, sec. 6. 1860, art. 48, sec. 5.
1854, ch. 193, sec. 5.

6. The discharge of any person under this article is not to release
any other person who may be liable as endorser, surety or otherwise.

This section applied where husband and wife were joint makers of a note,
and the husband alone pleaded a discharge. Allers v. Forbes, 59 Md. 377.

Ibid. sec. 7. 1888, art. 47, sec. 7. 1860, art. 48, sec. 6.
1854, ch. 193, sec. 6.

7. No person shall be released or discharged under this article who
has conveyed, concealed or disposed of his property to defraud or delay
his creditors, or prevent the same from being applied to the payment
of his debts, or who has, within one year of the time of filing his peti-
tion, by the conveyance or assignment of his property, or debts or
claims, or payment of money, given an undue and improper preference
to any of his creditors.

Although the court has denied an insolvent the benefit of a discharge, such
determination is not an adjudication in rent, and does not of itself set aside a
conveyance as fraudulent, nor is it evidence in a case to the latter end.
Syester v. Brewer, 27 Md. 313.

The failure of the applicant to file a schedule does not rescind the appoint-
ment of the trustee, but does debar the applicant from a discharge. Teackle
v. Crosby, 14 Md. 20.

If the facts tend to show that the insolvent has been guilty of acts prohib-
ited by this section, it is the duty of the court to have Issues framed. Jaeger
v. Requardt, 25 Md. 241.

This section relates only to cases of insolvency. Triebert v. Burgess, 11
Md. 462.

A deed for the benefit of creditors, discussed in connection with this sec-
tion. McColgan v. Hopkins, 17 Md. 401.

Ibid. sec. 8. 1888, art. 47, sec. 8. 1860, art. 48. sec. 7.
1854, ch. 193, sec. 7.

8. Any confession of judgment, and any conveyance or assignment
made by any insolvent under this article, for the purpose of defrauding
his creditors or giving an undue preference, shall be void, and the