Dulaney v. Hoffman
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Chancery. The appellant on the 24th of November 1830, exhibited his bill against the appellees Hoffman, Bend & Co. and Stinchcomb and Small, charging that the latter haying petitioned for, and obtained the benefit of the insolvent laws, on about the 12th of .December 1829, he the appellant was appointed their permanent trustee, and duly qualified as such, by giving bond with security.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Chancery. The appellant on the 24th of November 1830, exhibited his bill against the appellees Hoffman, Bend & Co. and Stinchcomb and Small, charging that the latter haying petitioned for, and obtained the benefit of the insolvent laws, on about the 12th of .December 1829, he the appellant was appointed their permanent trustee, and duly qualified as such, by giving bond with security. That the said insolvents, on the 27th of November preceding their application for the benefit of the insolvent laws, closed their business, they being at the lime indebted to a great number of…
1Opinion of the CourtBuchanan, Judge
This is not like the cases of Hickley vs. The Farmers and Merchants Bank, 5th Gill and Johns. 377, and Crawford and others, and Selman and others, vs. Taylor et al, 6 Gill and Johns. 323, cited by the defendants counsel.
The question in each of those cases, was the same that is ■ presented in this, but the circumstances and proof attending the transactions, were essentially different.
*175The object in those cases respectively, (as in this) was to shew, that the insolvent debtors have acted in the transactions objected to, “ with a view, or under an expectation, of being or becoming an insolvent…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Beatty v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1850
- Williams v. CohenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1866
- Brooks v. ThomasHigh Court of Chancery of Maryland · 1852
- Malcom v. HallHigh Court of Chancery of Maryland · 1847
- Stewart v. Union BankHigh Court of Chancery of Maryland · 1847