clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 49   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

WINN & ROSS VS. ALBERT & WIFE AND JONES. 49
The great object of these proceedings, from first to last, is to
procure an equal distribution of the estate of Samuel Jones, ju-
nior, an insolvent debtor, among his creditors, and to prevent the
giving of what is charged as an undue and improper preference
to the defendants, Albert and wife. This is manifestly the ob-
ject of the entire proceeding, but whether it can or ought, under
the circumstances of this case, to be accomplished, remains to
be decided hereafter.
It may happen, that the deed of trust, upon the strength of
which the original bill was filed, may ultimately be adjudged
valid, and as conveying to the grantees, all the property of
Jones, except the Wheatfield Inn, and that his interest in
that, therefore, whatever it may be, passed to the same parties
as his permanent trustees under the insolvent proceedings; in
which event, and to the extent of that property, there could be
no possible conflict between the titles.
It has been argued, that if the decree of the Baltimore County
Court, as a court of equity, is pronounced to be void, as giving
an undue and improper preference to the parties in whose favor
it was rendered, that then the deed of trust to Winn and Ross,
is invalid for the same reason. This may or may not be so,
but the Chancellor does not think it follows as a matter of
necessary consequence, and at any rate, it would be premature
now, upon this preliminary question, to express any opinion of
it. Upon the best consideration which I have been able to
give the subject, I think the leave to file the bill may be granted,
but it will be granted upon such terms as not to deprive the
defendants of an early decision upon their motion to dissolve
the injunction.
[An order was accordingly passed, granting the leave asked
for, with liberty reserved to the defendants, after answering the
supplemental bill, to move for a dissolution of the injunction
upon five days notice to the complainants.
Upon the hearing of the motion to dissolve, the Chancellor
pronounced the following opinion:]

  		clear space
clear space
white space

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 49   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

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.

©Copyright  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives