McNeal v. Glenn

Eccleston, J., delivered the opinion of this court. This proceeding, was designed to vacate three deeds or conveyances executed by Ann Watson. The first two to her son Hugh McNeal, and the third to Worley. They are alleged to be void under the insolvent laws, and fraudulent and void under the statute of Elizabeth, and at common law.

The first- deed dated the lllh of July 1843, was designed to convey a leasehold interest in a house and lot on Pratt street in the city of Baltimore, for the consideration of $404. On the 12th of the preceding month this property was conveyed to Mrs. Watson for the same consideration. After her purchase and before the deed to her son, she repaired the property at an expense of $815.84. According to this statement, which is warranted by the answers and the proof in the cause, the property was worth over $1200.

To avoid the inference of fraud arising from the great inequality between the value of the properly and the consideration expressed in the deed, the answer stales an indebtedness ⁹⁷ from the mother to the son, on account of services rendered by him as her clerk ; which by agreement between them was to be considered as payment for the repairs. The answer on this point is not responsive to the bill, and, therefore, must be sustained by proof. The bill alleges that, repairs to the amount of $900 were put upon the property, by Mrs. Watson after the conveyance to her son. It does not ask him to state how or in what manner he compensated her for the same, nor is there any interrogatory which looks to such an inquiry.

The answer denies that the repairs were made subsequent to the deed, but asserts they were before. And then the statement is given in regard to the payment made by him, in the manner already stated. In the case of Ringgold vs. Ringgold, 1 H. & J., 82 , it was held that under a bill to account, the answer is no evidence of disbursements. That sush a bill is no more than a demand upon the defendant to show his receipts, and the legal proof of his expenditures.

The circumstances disclosed by the proof in this case convince us it is not within the scope of rational probability, but on the contrary next to an impossibility, that with his means of raising money or of acquiring property, the son of Mrs. Watson could have saved from his earnings sufficient to enable him to pay the