| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 127 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
POWLES VS. DILLEY. 127 an undue and improper preference under the provisions of our insolvent system, they have failed to make out such a case, upon the evidence, as would entitle them to the relief they ask for. But the plaintiffs have no such standing; the title to prop- erty or claims transferred or conveyed to a favored creditor, contrary to the provisions of our insolvent system, being by the 1st section of the act of 1812, ch. 77, expressly vested in the trustee of the insolvent, who alone is competent to sue for its recovery, for the benefit of the creditors generally. Kennedy vs. Boggs, 5 H. & L, 410. Hording vs. Stevenson, 6 H. & L, 264. In addition, however, to the prayer, that the transfer of the policy to Dilley may be declared void, the bill asks that he may be removed from his office of trustee and a receiver ap- pointed, to make distribution rateably among the creditors. My impression, however, is very decided, that this court has no jurisdiction over the subject of the appointment of insolvent trustees, that it is confided exclusively to the courts of law, over whom, in the exercise of this authority, this court can exercise no power of revision or control. Glenn & Kennedy vs. Fowler, 8 Gill & Johns., 340. It may be that under certain circum- stances, this court might exercise an ancillary jurisdiction, and interpose its authority for the prevention of injury, until the proper court could inquire into the subject, and apply the appro- priate remedy; but it seem impossible to maintain that the Chancery Court, after the courts of law' have acted by the ap- pointment of a trustee, may, upon the allegation, that they have appointed an improper person or taken insufficient security, set aside such appointment, and take upon itself the administration of the estate of the .insolvent, by an officer of its own. Alex- ander vs. Stewart, 8 Gill & Johns; 226. For these reasons, I am of the opinion the bill must be dismissed. S. T. WALLIS and J. GLENN for Complainants. WM. F. FRICK and THOS. J. McKAIG for Defendants. {The decree in this case was affirmed on appeal.] |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 127 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