Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 Md. 74

Rich v. Levy

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided June 7, 1860

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1860-06-07

<p>A bill by a creditor who had not reduced his claim to judgment and execution, nor in any other manner acquired a lien upon his debtor’s property, alleged that the debtor is selling his goods and applying the proceeds to his own use, and the use of others without consideration, and thus, and in other ways, is wasting his resources, and is sending large quantities of his goods beyond the reach of his creditors, and is utterly insolvent. Held :</p> <p>That these allegations do not make a case for the interposition of a court of equity, to restrain, by injunction, the debtor in the enjoyment and . power of disposition of his property.</p> <p>Where answers are called for and given -under oath, denying the allegations of fraud in the bill, they are strong evidence for the defendants, and unless rebutted by the degree of evidence required by the rule in such cases, must be taken as proof of what they allege.</p> <p>A mortgage to be valid must be bona fide, for if it be made with intent to defraud or defeat creditors, it will be void, though there may be, in the strictest sense, a valuable and adequate consideration.</p> <p>When a sale, assignment, or other conveyance, merely amounts to giving - preference to one creditor over another, it is not to be treated as mala fide, but as merely doing what the law admits to be rightful; it is not necessarily fraudulent because it operates to the prejudice of a particular creditor.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1860-06-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1935

4 state decisions

2018601870188018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Tuck, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of this court.

¶2We do not discover any reason for disturbing the decree in this cause, From an examination of the record, we think the complainants failed to show that the conveyance was without consideration, and that it was not bona fide.

¶3The learned j udge below having expressed his views at length, on those points, and, as we think, correctly, we may rest the affirmance of the decree on the opinion filed by him.

¶4 Decree affirmed %oith costs.

/16/md/74 · .json · Public domain