Faringer v. Ramsay

Lk Grand, C. J., delivered the opinion of this court. These suits, which were consolidated by the order of the chancellor, have for their object a decree, declaring certain property mentioned in the proceedings to be part of the insolvent estate of Jacob Faringer. The bills were filed by his widow as permanent trustee. They claim the properly as part of his insolvent estate.

It is true, they also say, that the deeds which are attempted to be ³⁷⁴ set aside as fraudulent, were made as well in fraud of the marital rights of the widow as those of the creditors, but they were filed by her, not as widow, but as permanent trustee of her husband, under his application for the benefit of the insolvent laws of this State. It appears from the proceedings, that Jacob Faringer applied for the benefit of the insolvent laws some time in the year 1849, and on the 11th day of June, of the same year, (he in the meantime having died,) his wife, the complainant, became his permanent trustee. That on the 7th April 1845, a certain leasehold interest in a lot of ground, in the city of Baltimore, was conveyed by its owner to Eliza Ramsay, and on the 5th February 1847, alike interest in another lot was also conveyed to her. The bills, in substance allege, and charge, that the property was purchased by and paid for out of the means of Jacob Faringer, and the deeds made to Eliza Ramsay, with the view to defraud his creditors, and in fraud of the marital rights of his wife.

The answer of the defendant, Ramsay, expressly denies the property was paid for out of the funds of Faringer, and avers it v.rns paid for out of her own means. It has been doubted whether it was competent to a party, by parol, to set aside a deed where the property is purchased with the money of A, and the deed given to B; but the weight of authority seems to sustain the right, and that in such a case a trust results, by operation of law, in favor of A; and that such evidence is not only admissible against the face of the deed, but in opposition to the answer of the grantee. The authorities on the subject are very fully collected and ably examined in the case of Boyd vs. McLean, 1 John. Ch.

Rep., 582. See also Dorsey vs. Clarke, 4 Har. & John., 556. In view of this doctrine a large body of testimony was taken in the case before the court. We have given it a very careful examination, and have arrived at the