| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 111 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
SWAN VS. DENT AND RICHARDS. HI MARCH TERM, 1847. BENJAMIN SWAN ET AL., BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND vs. ZACHARIAH DENT AND GEORGE T. RICHARDS AND PRISCILLA, HIS WIFE. [RULES OF PRACTICE—GUARDIAN AND WARD—INFANTS—VACATING FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES.] THB trustee of an insolvent debtor is a necessary party to a bill filed by credi- tors to vacate a fraudulent conveyance, made by the insolvent before his ap- plication. An answer to a supplemental bill must be restricted to the matters stated in it, and a defendant has no right, under pretext of answering the supplemental, to add to, or amend his answer to, the original bill. Exceptions to an answer on these grounds will be sustained. Where the relation of guardian and ward has been terminated by the removal of the former, the infant has the same right to call him to an account, as he would have, to call his representatives to an account in case of his death : and in the latter case it has been decided that an infant may sue as if he were of age. Though an infant himself cannot call his guardian to an account, whilst the re- lation subsists, but must wait until he attains age, yet a third person may do so, during the minority, for the benefit of the infant, of whose interest the law is especially careful. The office of guardian is that of a trustee, and the general power of the Chan- cery Court to superintend trusts, is expressly preserved by the act of 1798, ch. 101, sub. ch. 13, sec. 16. Prior to the act of 1835, ch. 380, the general rule was, that a creditor, before he could in equity pursue property fraudulently conveyed, must have first obtained a judgment with respect to realty, and a judgment and fieri facias where personal property was to be reached; yet there are some exceptions to the role. The case of a guardian suing in behalf of his wards, who is the surety on the bond given by the former guardian, and, therefore, cannot himself maintain an action at law on the bond, might possibly be regarded as constituting such an exception to the general rule. But the act of 1835, ch. 380, sec. 2, expressly exempts creditors from the obli- gation to obtain judgments, before they can proceed in equity to vacate fraud- ulent conveyances. The conveyances in this case were vacated upon proof, that they embraced all the grantor's property, real and personal; that they were made to his daughter, who never did and never could have paid the consideration expressed in them ; that at the time of executing them he was greatly in debt, and shortly after- wards applied for the benefit of the insolvent laws, returning no property in his schedule; and that the whole transaction was a scheme to defraud his creditors. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 111 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives