Norberg v. Records & Goldsborough

Briscoe, J. delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from a decree of the Circuit Court No. 2, of Baltimore City, vacating and declaring null and void a deed from the appellants, Louis Norberg and wife, to his ⁵⁶⁹ son, and also a deed simultaneously executed from the son to the wife of the grantor in the first deed, on the ground of fraud. The bill alleges, in substance, that the appellant, Louis Norberg, being indebted unto the appellees, Records & Goldsborough, in the sum of $164.14, executed and delivered on the 9th of December, 1895, to his son, Charles Norberg, for a pretended consideration of $4,000, a deed for a certain lot of ground in the city of Baltimore; and that at the same time a deed was executed by the appellants, Charles Norberg and wife, conveying the same property to the wife of Louis Norberg for the identical , consideration. It is also alleged and charged that these deeds were made for the purpose of hindering and defrauding creditors, and the relief prayed is, that the deeds be declared null and void and the property decreed to be sold “ to satisfy the claim of the appellees under a judgment held by them.” Subsequently, on March 24th, Joseph H. Straus, one of the appellees, was, by order of Court, made a party plaintiff The defendants were duly summoned, but failed to either appear or answer the bill, and on the 25th of March, 1896, a decree pro confesso was passed.

After testimony there was a final decree declaring the deeds “ absolutely null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever,” and directing the property to be sold. It is from this decree that this appeal has been taken. Now it is clear from the testimony that the deed from Louis Norberg and wife to his son, Charles, and the deed from Charles and his wife, to Wilhelmina, the wife of Louis Norberg, was but an attempt to place the title of this property in the wife of Louis, for the purpose of defrauding creditors. It appears from the appellant, Louis Nor-berg’s own testimony, that no money passed as a consideration from his son to him or from his wife to his son, “ except as he says they pay me for it some of these days.” The deeds then being neither bona fide, nor for a good or valuable consideration, and fraudulent in fact, were void ab initio and are not to be recognized for any lawful purpose. ⁵⁷⁰ Zimmer v. Miller, 64 Md.