Crane v. Barkdoll

Miller, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The proviso in the first section of Article 45 of the Code, “that no acquisition of property passing to the wife from the husband after coverture, shall be valid, if the same has been made or granted to her in prejudice of the rights of his subsisting creditors,” does not prevent the husband from treating his wife like any other creditor, if the relation of debtor and creditor is proved to exist between them. A wife may become a creditor of the husband, and this provision of the Code was never intended to prohibit him from paying or devoting his property to the payment of a debt due to her. If she is, in fact, such creditor, the law regards her rights with as much favor as those of other creditors.

He may prefer her in a deed of trust for the benefit of creditors, or he may convey property to her absolutely in consideration and discharge of such debt, in the same way he could in reference to a debt due by him to any other party. These propositions have been so frequently announced and settled by the decisions of this ⁵³⁶ Court that they can no longer he the subject of controversy or doubt. Bowie vs. Stonestreet, 6 Md., 418 ; Stockett, Adm’r, et al. vs. Holliday, 9 Md., 480 ; Jones, Adm’r of Horsey vs. Jones, et al., 18 Md., 464 ; Mayfield, et al. vs. Kilgour, et al., 31 Md., 240 ; Drury and wife vs. Briscoe and Randall, Trustees, 42 Md., 154 ; Oswold, et al. vs. Hoover, 43 Md., 360 ; Sabel vs. Slingluff, et al., 52 Md., 132 . The deed assailed by the creditors of the husband in this case bears date the 18th of December, 1875.

By it,, the husband, Peter Barkdoll, conveyed about ninety acres, of land to his daughter, Mary A. Barkdoll, in trust for his. wife, Susanna Barkdoll. Upon its face it purports to have been executed, “ in consideration of the sum of eleven hundred dollars, heretofore received by him, the said ’Peter,, from his wife Susanna Barkdoll, and in payment and extinguishment of the debt from the said Peter to his said wife thereby created.” It was admitted that the value of this land was less than $1100, and in support of the debt, referred to as the consideration of the deed, there were produced two promissory notes by the husband to the wife,, one for $525, dated the 28th of November, 1868, and the other for $575, dated the 1st of April, 1870, each payable one day after date. The proof as to the history of these notes,—how the wife obtained the money, and how she became the creditor of her husband,—comes from the husband, the wife and the daughter, who were examined as witnesses. By their testimony the following facts, in substance, were proved: The wife was entitled, under the will of her father, Joseph Shank, who died in November, 1848, to a share of his estate, real and personal, upon the death of her mother, who died in 1850.

By an arrangement between them, the son, Benjamin Shank, agreed to take the estate at a valuation and pay to the other children their respective shares in money. Benjamin, in 1854, paid to his ⁵³⁷ sister, Mrs. Barkdoll, $600 on account of ter stare, in 1855 te paid ter $100 more, and in 1856 te paid ter $450, tte residue. Ttis money was paid by tte brother directly to Ms sister, tte wife, and not to ter husband. A few days after ste received it on each occasion, ste loaned it to ter husband upon tis express promise, made at the time, ttat te would repay tte same, and at the time te received them te gave her his