| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 119 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
POWLES VS. DILLEY. 119 HENRY POWLES ET AL. vs. MARCH TERM, 1849. JOSEPH DILLEY ET AL. 3 [UNDUE PREFERENCE-INSOLVENT SYSTEM-JURISDICTION.] To render an assignment valid under the 13th of Elizabeth, it is not enough to show that it was made for a valuable consideration, for that alone is not sufficient; it must also be bono fide. It is well established that by the common law, a debtor may secure one credi- tor to the exclusion of others, either by payment, or a bona fide transfer of his property. The transfer to a favored creditor, to be void under our insolvent system, must be made with a view, or under an expectation, of taking the benefit of the insolvent laws, and also with intent thereby to give him an undue and im- proper preference-both intents must be found to exist, or the transfer will not be disturbed. The intent may be deduced as in other cases from facts and circumstances, but these must be such, as by fair inference will bring the mind to the conclusion that the unlawful intent existed. The circumstances of this case distinguished from those of Dulaney vs. Hoffman, 7 Gill, and Johns., 107. The title to property or claims transferred, or conveyed to a favored creditor, contrary to the provisions of the insolvent system, is, by the act of 1812, ch. 77, expressly vested in the trustee of the insolvent, and he alone is compe- tent to sue for its recovery for the benefit of the creditors generally. The Chancery Court has no jurisdiction over the subject of the appointment of insolvent trustees; this is a power confided exclusively in the courts of law, over which, in the exercise of this authority, this court can exercise no power of revision or control. Under some circumstances this court may exercise an ancillary jurisdiction, and interpose its authority for the prevention of injury, until the proper court can inquire into the subject and apply the appropriate remedy. But after the courts of law have acted by the appointment of a trustee, the Chancery Court cannot, upon allegations that they have appointed an im- proper person, or taken insufficient security, set aside such appointment, and take upon itself the administration of the estate of the insolvent, by an offi- cer of its own. [The history of the various proceedings in this case, as well as the facts upon which the decree is founded, are so clearly set forth in the opinion of the Chancellor, as to require no fur- ther statement.] |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 119 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