ART. 47] PREFERENCES. 1213

property or thing conveyed or assigned shall vest in the trustee; and all
acts done by the petitioner before his application, when he shall have
had no reasonable expectation of being exempted from liability to
execution, on account of his debts or responsibilities, without petition-
ing for the benefit of the insolvent laws, shall be deemed to be within
the meaning and purview of this section.

When conveyances, etc., are fraudulent and void.

This section contemplates a class of cases in which the acts of an insolvent
can not be avoided although he may be actually insolvent at the time. The
terms "no reasonable expectation of being exempted," etc., imply a knowledge
or belief on the part of the insolvent of his inability to pay his debts. This
section makes void or voidable only such acts as the debtor may be presumed
to have done in derogation of the rights of creditors, with the view of becom-
ing an insolvent. Williams v. Cohen, 25 Md. 497.

The preference referred to in this section Is one given in contemplation of
insolvency. A deed for the benefit of creditors held valid under this section.
McColgan v. Hopkins, 17 Md. 401. See also, Malcolm v. Hall, 9 Gill, 180.

Where the grantor in a deed never takes the benefit of the insolvent law,
it can not be claimed that the deed was made with a view of becoming an
insolvent. A construction of the words "with a view" of becoming an insol-
vent. Wheeler v. Stone, 4 Gill, 46.

Transfers held valid, although made when the debtor was in failing circum-
stances. Glenn v. Grover, 3 Md. 225; State v. Bank of Maryland, 6 G. & J.
220.

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

An attempt to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent and made in contem-
plation of Insolvency, denied. What must be established to avoid such a
conveyance? Lapse of time between the conveyance and the application in
insolvency. Powles v. Dilley, 2 Md. Ch. 123; Glenn v. Baker, 1 Md. Ch. 76;
Malcolm v. Hall, 9 Gill, 180; Beatty v. Davis, 9 Gill, 218; Powles v. Dilley, 9
Gill, 231.

A Judgment to the effect that a party is not entitled to a discharge because
of having made a deed to B. which was a preference, is not an adjudication
in rem and conclusive upon the rights of B. The status of the property is not
involved in such verdict and it is not evidence against B. After the lapse of
twenty years, an insolvent estate is presumed to be closed, and equity will
not entertain a bill to set aside coneyances made by the insolvent before his
application, unless it is satisfied that there are subsisting debts due by the
insolvent. Both the intent to take the benefit of insolvency and to give an
unlawful preference must appear to bring an act under this section. Prox-
imity of time as an element in determining such intent. Syester v. Brewer.
27 Md. 313. See also, Maennel v. Murdock, 13 Md. 177; Falconer v. Clark, 7
Md. 177; Powles v. Dilley, 9 Gill, 222.

Assignment held to have been made with an expectation of becoming an
insolvent. Proximity of time of assignment and application. Dulaney v.
Hoffman, 7 G. & J. 175; Brooks v. Thomas, 8 Md. 371. For a failure of such
proof, see HIckey v. Farmers' Bank, 5 G. & J. 380.

Whatever is the necessary consequence of an act deliberately done, the law
presumes every man to intend. When the quo animo becomes an Inference
of law. A correct instruction under this section. Gardner v. Lewis, 7 Gill,
404.

What amounts to a preference? Hodson v. Karr, 96 Md. 479.
For a sale held to have been made for the purpose of defrauding creditors,
see Smith v. Pattisou, 84 Md. 344.

For a transfer from a husband to his wife held void upon a bill in equity
by the insolvent trustee, see Manning v. Carruthers, 83 Md. 1.

For deeds of trust for the benefit of creditors, conveyances, assignments,
transfers, etc., not Involving insolvents, but which were attacked as fraudu-
lent, see Luckemeyer v. Seltz, 61 Md. 313; Matthai v. Heather, 57 Md. 484;
Price v. Piltzer, 44 Md. 521; Boyd v. Parker, 43 Md. 201; Whedbee v. Stewart,