Dorsey v. Smithson
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Arpear from Harford county court. An action of replevin was brought by the appellee against the appellant, and the following c$se wg,s stated for the opinion of the court.
Read the full summary
Arpear from Harford county court. An action of replevin was brought by the appellee against the appellant, and the following c$se wg,s stated for the opinion of the court. The property replevied w;as part of the property contained in a bill of sale from E. Smithson to the plaintiff, (now appellee,) dated the 12th day of .Search 1817, executed by her, she being then the owner of said property, and acknowledged on the same day before a justice of the peace, but not recorded as the act of assembly directs? it was. made for the consideration of love and affection to the plaintiff) he being her…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Earle, J.
The bill of sale, which gate rise to the dispute between the parties in this cause, was executed and acknowledged before a justice of.the peace, but was not recorded as the act of assembly directs.
It is void as to creditors, if made to their injury, but it Is binding on the donor, her executors, administrators and assigns, and all claiming under her or them, both at common law, and under the act of assembly of 1729, ch. 8, s. 6. Being an obligatory instrument on the donor, and those claiming under her, the appellant, as her executor, has m…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Cushwa v. CushwaCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853
- State Ex Rel. Horsey v. Maryland Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1933
- Schuman ex rel. Hesen v. PeddicordCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1879
- Biemuller v. SchneiderCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1884
- McCartney v. FletcherCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1897
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.