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 606   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

606 INDEX
UNDUE PREFERENCE—Continued.
an arrangement was made by witness, his brother and clerk, and said
McCormick, to pay the bank the note in question out of bills due the
firm. That witness objected to this arrangement, because they ex-
pected to compound with their creditors, and he did not wish to give
a preference to one over another, but to make an equal distribution of
assets among their creditors, it was HELD—
That this proof was not sufficient to establish that this preference
was given with a view, and under an expectation on the part of
the Hammonda of taking the benefit of the insolvent laws, and was
not, therefore, void, under the insolvent system of this state.
Stewart vs. Union Bank et al., 58.
2. This transaction occurring prior to the act of 1834, ch. 293, must be
shown to be void, if void at all, under the act of 1812, ch. 77, sec. 1,
or the act of 1816, ch. 231, sec. 6. III.
3. At common law, a debtor in failing circumstances has an unquestionable
right to secure one creditor to the exclusion of others, either by pay-
ment or a tona fide transfer of his property. The onus prohandi is,
therefore, upon the party who seeks to disturb such preference, to
show that it is prohibited by our insolvent system. J6.
4. The vitiating intent may be established by circumstantial proof; but
such proof is entitled to less influence when it is manifest, that direct
evidence upon the question was within reach. Ib.
5. It is well established that by the common law, a debtor may secure one
creditor to the exclusion of others either by payment or a bona fide
transfer of his property. Powels vs. Dilley, 119.
6. 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 improper preference—both intents must be found to
exist, or the transfer will not be disturbed. Ib.
7. The intent may be deduced as in other cases from facts and circum-
stances; but these must be such, as by fair inference, will bring the
mind to the conclusion, that the unlawful intent existed. III.
S. The circumstances of this cage distinguished from those of Dulaney vs.
Hoffman, 7 Gill & Johns., 107. Ib.
USURY.
1. The statute against usury cannot be evaded by any shift or device, and
no matter what the form of the transaction may be, the courts will
explore the real truth, and if they discover that the object was a loan
of money at more than the legal interest, it will be condemned. 'Brown
vs. Waters, 201.
2. A renewal of the usurious contract between the same parties, partakes
of the infirmity of the original agreement; but, if the latter is dis-
charged, or is made the consideration of a contract entirely new,
as being with a third party, not a party to the original contract, or to
the usury paid, or as combining other parties and considerations, and
not being a contrivance to evade the statute, the usury laws do not
apply It.

 
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 606   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  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives