Matthai, Ingram & Co. v. Heather

• Decision Date: 19 January 1882
• Citation: 57 Md. 483
• Parties: MATTHAI, INGRAM & COMPANY, and others v. THOMAS E. HEATHER, and others.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

57 Md. 483

MATTHAI, INGRAM & COMPANY, and others v. THOMAS E. HEATHER, and others.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 19, 1882

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Caroline County, in Equity.

The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., GRASON, MILLER and STONE, J.

J W. Bryant, and John H. Handy, for the appellants.

George M. Russum, and William H. Tuck, for the appellees.

MILLER J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellants filed the bill in this case for the purpose of vacating a deed executed by Thomas E. Heather, to his wife. The deed bears date on the 21st of September, 1877, and was duly recorded on the 24th of the same month. By it, as expressed on its face, the grantor, "in consideration of love and affection, and other good and valuable considerations, and also the sum of ten dollars," conveys certain described real and personal property to his wife, Gulia E. Heather. It is admitted that at the date of this conveyance, Heather was a man of considerable property in prosperous circumstances, clear of debt and of good credit. The substantial charge of the bill is that he executed this deed with the purpose and intent of becoming largely indebted to the complainants and others, and of hindering, delaying and defrauding those who might thus become his creditors out of their just dues and claims, and that shortly thereafter he did become largely indebted to the complainants and others, for goods sold to him, and for which he has failed and neglected to pay. All the charges of fraud contained in the bill are explicitly denied in the answers, and upon the issue thus made up, the testimony appearing in the record has been taken. After hearing the case the Court below passed an order dismissing the bill, and from that order some of the complainants have appealed.

With respect to the law applicable to such a case there is no difficulty. It is well settled in this State that a voluntary conveyance made by a party solvent at the time, may be impeached and set aside by subsequent creditors, provided it be executed with the intention and design to defraud those who should thereafter become his creditors. Williams vs. Banks, 11 Md., 198; Moore vs. Blondheim, 19 Md., 172. But here, as in other cases where fraud is charged, the fraudulent purpose will not be presumed, but must be proved. The onus rests on the parties assailing the deed to...