INSOLVENTS 2015

places of business or residence, so far as known to the insolvent, all veri-
fied 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 descrip-
tion 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 prop-
erty 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 discharge
rights or claims of non-residents unless such non-residents participate in insolvency
proceedings. The adjudication in insolvency is in rem, and binds all persons whether
parties or not, as to 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 art. 23, sec. 377,
of Code of 1904 (art. 23, sec. 99, of this 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.

Design and remedial nature of insolvent laws discussed. Their construction is similar
to that of 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; Alexander v. Ghiselin, 5 Gill, 179.

While our insolvent law is construed similarly to the bankrupt law, such construction
does not justify expanding 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 decisions of the supreme court of United
States on state insolvent laws. State v. Krebs, 6 H. & J. 31, note.

Schedule.

Failure of applicant to file a schedule does not rescind appointment of the trus-
tee, but does debar the applicant from discharge. Teackle v. Crosby, 14 Md. 20.

This section, in connection with secs. 2 and 19, makes it evident that all the in-
solvent's property, whether mentioned in the schedule or not, save that excepted
in this section, vests in the trustee. Zeigler v. King, 9 Md. 333.

Generally.

This section referred to in construing sec. 14. Industrial Service v. Rogers, 163 Md. 660.

Powers of the states to adopt insolvent laws; limitations thereon. Brown v. Smart,
69 Md. 327; Brown v. Smart, 145 U. S. 454. And see Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 635.

If a case is within jurisdiction of insolvent court, latter's judgment cannot be
impeached collaterally in absence of fraud. Jurisdiction of insolvent court does not
depend upon petitioner being actually insolvent. State v. Culler, 18 Md. 432. And see
Weaver v. Leiman, 52 Md. 714.

Constitutional right of removal has no application to insolvent proceeding or issues
framed in pursuance thereof. Bel Air Social, etc., Club v. State, 74 Md. 300; Trayhem v.
Hamill, 53 Md. 90; Michael v. Schroeder, 4 H. & J. 227.

If facts tend to show that the petitioner has not complied with the requirements of
this section, it is duty of court to have pertinent issues framed. Jaeger v. Requardt,
25 Md. 241.

The insolvent system was not abolished by clause in state Constitution doing away
with imprisonment for debt. Trail v. Snouffer, 6 Md. 319.

Prior to adoption of sec. 30 the insolvent law did not contemplate a proceeding by
or against a co-partnership or joint debtors, as such. Cator v. Martin, 57 Md. 401.
See also Pinckney v. Lanahan, 62 Md. 454.

Prior to sec. 37, married women were not within the contemplation of this article.
Relief Bldg. Assn. v. Schmidt, 55 Md. 97.