1734 ARTICLE 47.

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, 40 Md.
421; Foley v. Bitter, 34 Md. 646; Crauford v. Austin, 34 Md. 51; Mackintosh v.
Corner, 33 Md. 598; Laupheimer v. Rosenbaum, 25 Md. 219.

Title and powers of trustee and creditors.

While a trustee takes property subject to valid liens, his control over it and
right to recover it are not wholly limited to what the insolvent might do. The
trustee represents all creditors. Applegarth v. Wagner, 86 Md. 472.

Where there is a fraudulent transfer of money and property, the insolvent trus-
tee may sue therefor at law. Teackle v. Gibson, 8 Md. 87.

Where an insolvent has made a deed for the benefit of creditors which has been
declared void, the property vests at once in insolvent trustee, and if any of such
property has been sold, the proceeds belong to the trustee. Lynch v. Roberts, 57
Md. 153.

The insolvent trustee is the proper party to impeach a deed as fraudulent, and
claim the property for use of creditors. Proof of fraud. Waters v. Dashiell, 1
Md. 472.

Where trustee refuses to institute proceedings to avoid a fraudulent conveyance,
the creditors may do so themselves. Insolvent Estate of Leiman, 32 Md. 242;
Jamison v. Chestnut, 8 Md. 38. But see Powles v. Dilley, 2 Md. Ch. 119.

Where creditors themselves attack a conveyance as fraudulent, insolvent trustee
is a necessary party. Immediately upon setting aside of such a conveyance, title
vests in trustee. Jamison v. Chestnut, 8 Md. 38. And see Swan v. Dent, 2 Md.
Ch. 111.

. Under act of 1829, ch. 208, sec. 3, the provisional trustee has as full power to sue
for and recover property fraudulently conveyed as permanent trustee has. Teackle
v. Gibson, 8 Md. 87.

Generally.

If the facts tend to show that the insolvent has been guilty of acts prohibited
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.

What a bill to set aside a conveyance under this section must allege. Ensor v.
Keech, 64 Md. 380.

For a note upon fraudulent conveyances, see Swan v. Dent, 2 Md. Ch. 111.

For cases involving similar provisions of the bankrupt act, see Ecker v. Mc-
Allister, 54 Md. 373; Ecker v. McAllister, 45 Md. 305.

For cases apparently no longer applicable to this section because of changes in
the law, see Waters v. Riggin, 19 Md. 537; Brooks v. Thomas, 8 Md. 367; Stewart
v. Union Bank, 7 Gill, 439; Gardner v. Lewis, 7 Gill, 379; Cole v. Albers, 1 Gill,
422; Crawford v. Taylor, 6 G. & J. 330; Brooks v. Thomas, 4 Md. Ch. 15. See also
sec. 24.

See secs. 14 and 22 and notes.

As to conveyances from husband to wife, see art. 45, secs. 1 and 2.

An. Code, sec. 9. 1904, sec. 9. 1888, sec. 9. 1854, ch. 193, sec. 8.

9. Any judgment or decree confessed to give an undue preference to
any creditor, or for the purpose of defrauding any creditor, shall be void
and excluded in the distribution under this article.

If the facts tend to show that insolvent has been guilty of acts prohibited by this

section, it is duty of 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.

An. Code, sec. 10. 1904, sec. 10. 1888, sec. 10. 1854, ch. 193, sec. 9.

10. Any creditor who shall collude with the insolvent to make his claim
appear larger than it justly is shall forfeit the whole claim for the benefit
of the other creditors.