Hoopes v. Knell

Brent, «L, delivered the opinion of the Court. It appears from the record in this case that Mary Kraft, being involved in a criminal charge, on the 26th of September, 1868, executed a deed of assignment to William P. Hoopes, the appellant, of all her property real and personal, for the benefit of her creditors. This deed was ⁵⁵³ presented for record on the 19th of October following, and was recorded on that day. On the 30th of November, 1868, Henry Knell, the appellee, filed a bill in behalf of himself and all other creditors of Mary Kraft who might come in and contribute to the costs of the suit, to set aside the deed to Hoopes, and to obtain a decree for the sale of all the property of Mary Kraft, she being confined, as it alleged, under conviction by the Criminal Court of Baltimore City, and unable to attend to her affairs.

The Court below passed a decree setting aside the deed to Hoopes, and directing a sale of the property, and appointing a trustee for that purpose. From this decree an appeal is taken by Hoopes, and it presents the question of the validity of the deed from Mary Kraft to him as trustee, for the benefit of her creditors. It was not contended in the argument that this deed is void upon its face. So far as anything in the deed itself is contained, it is beyond all question valid.

It devotes the entire property mentioned in it to the payment of creditors, without exacting releases or reserving to the grantor any benefit or advantage. It disposes of the property absolutely, and makes no reservation from which even an inference might be drawn of an intent to reserve any part of it for the benefit of the debtor, or in any way to hinder and delay creditors. But it is said that, after the execution and delivery of the deed, the grantor requested Hoopes, the trustee named in it, “ not to put it on record for a few days, as it might injure her while these troubles were hanging over her, if her creditors knew she had made an assignment,” and that he told her “ he would wait a few days,” — and that this forms a secret agreement, from which the grantor derived such benefit or advantage as renders the assignment void. ⁵⁵⁴ That a debtor cannot, in a voluntary deed for the benefit of creditors, reserve any part of the property for his own benefit, or. stipulate for any advantage to himself or family without rendering the deed void, is unquestioned law, and has been well settled by the decisions of this Court. Green & Trammell vs. Trieber, 3 Md., 11 .

But an agreement after the execution of the deed “ not to put it upon record for a few days ” does not bring it within the operation of this principle. This fact connected with others might be some evidence of actual fraud, but it cannot be understood as establishing, by any construction which the testimony-would warrant, a secret agreement under which there was a reservation of any of the property for the benefit of the grantor, or any stipulation in regard to the disposal of it for the advantage of herself or family. It does not divert any portion of the property from the purposes of the trust, and furnishes no sufficient ground for declaring this deed to be void. Its validity is also attacked upon the ground, that being an assignment of personal as well as real property, there should have been endorsed upon it an affidavit of the grantee, that the consideration was true and bond fide, and farther, that it should have been recorded within twenty days.

Supposing these objections to be well founded, they only reach the personal property intended to be conveyed. This deed is recorded within