Gebhart v. Merfeld

Bowie, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case, is from a decree of the Circuit 'Court of Baltimore City,' setting aside a deed, made by one Henry Engels to the appellant, upon a bill filed by the appellees. The bill in substance charges, that Engels being indebted to the appellees in a large sum of money upon note and open account then due, sold and conveyed to the appellant certain leasehold property, lying in the City of Baltimore, of large value, for a pretended consideration and subject to a mortgage; and that said conveyance was made by the grantor, and accepted by the grantee with the intent to hinder, delay, and defraud the appellees, and other creditors of the grantor; that the conveyance covers all the property of the grantor, and leaves nothing in his possession, out of which his debts can be satisfied, etc. ³²⁴ The allegations of the bill being put in issue by the answer of the appellant, and an interlocutory decree passed against his co-defendant, Engels, a commission was issued, under which testimony in behalf of complainants and respondents was taken and returned. And the cause being argued by counsel, the Court below passed the decree appealed from by the grantee.

The prayer of the bill is “ that the conveyance from Engels to Gebhart may be declared void, and that the said property may be sold and the proceeds applied to the payment of the claim of your orators and such other creditors, who may became parties to this cause ” — and for other and further relief. The appellant’s objections to the decree are first, to the form or certain details, and secondly, to the matter or substance, that it is not sustained by proof. These objections will be considered in their inverse order. The evidence consists of the cause of action, the ground of indebtedness of Engels to the appellees, being a promissory note dated December 1st, 1815, for $442.39, made by Engels, payable to the order of the appellees at six months after date, falling due the 1st and 4th of June, 1816, and an open account dated March 10th,'for merchandise due from Engels to same amounting to $60.12, in all $502.51, proved by one of the appellees to be due and unpaid.

It is shown that Engels the grantor, was, if not technically insolvent, indebted in large sums of money on mortgages to building associations which he was unable to pay, and to take up these, and carry on his business, he negotiated the loan on a mortgage for $1800, bearing even date' with the deed, which is impeached and therein recited, out of which the grantee in the deed paid off former incumbrances, still leaving the grantor indebted to the grantee, in the balance for which the sale is made to him. ³²⁵ It is also proved by the grantee, that he had previously heard of the indebtedness of the grantor to the appellees, although he did not know the amount • or whether the debt was still due. The relations between the grantor and grantee appear from the evidence to be such, that the latter, could not be ignorant of the former’s condition as to