Woods v. Fulton & Starck
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Court of Chancery. The bill in case was filed by the complainants, (now appellees,) against the administrator and representatives of J. M. Dennison, to obtain a decree for the sale of a house and lot in the c ¡ • ty of Baltimore, alleged to have been mortgaged to them by J. M. Dennison, in his life,-time, to satisfy a.debt due from Dennison and his partner, Thomas L. Savin The substance ot the case, as disclosed by the record, is this— Denrdson & Savin were…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Chancery. The bill in case was filed by the complainants, (now appellees,) against the administrator and representatives of J. M. Dennison, to obtain a decree for the sale of a house and lot in the c ¡ • ty of Baltimore, alleged to have been mortgaged to them by J. M. Dennison, in his life,-time, to satisfy a.debt due from Dennison and his partner, Thomas L. Savin The substance ot the case, as disclosed by the record, is this— Denrdson & Savin were partners in trade in Baltimore; as were also the complainants. They agreed mutually to endorse for each other, to obtain…
1Opinion of the CourtDorsey, J.
It has been contended on the part of the appellants, that the decree of the chancellor ought to be reversed, as the mortgage from Dennison to the appellees was fraudulent, with reference to the creditors of Dennison, and Dennison & Savin; and the eleventh section of the act of 1785, ch. 72, has been relied on to establish this position. As the answers do not state the insufficiency of the estate of Dennt-son to satisfy his creditors, or the insolvency of the firm of Dennison 8f Savin, (and to those points there is no proof in the cause,) the question of fraud, with reference to creditors,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Sullivan v. TuckHigh Court of Chancery of Maryland · 1847