Maryland case law › White v. Pittsburgh National Bank of Commerce

White v. Pittsburgh National Bank of Commerce

80 Md. 1 (1894) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedPage✓ Good law
HoldingThe appellants executed a deed of trust for the benefit of creditors on August 17, 1893, and it was recorded the next day.

Page, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On the 17th day of August, 1893, the appellants executed, for the benefit of creditors, a deed of trust, which was filed for record on the 18th day of August. On the x 2th day of September following, the appellees sued out an attachment, and, on the same day had it laid on certain property of the appellants, particularly described in the return of the sheriff. On the eighth day of October next ensuing, the trustees named in the deed filed a bond for the faithful discharge of their duties, and, on the sixth day of January, 1894, the appellants moved the Court to quash the attachment, alleging that, by the execution, delivery and recording of the deed, and the filing of the bond, the property attached became and was, at the time of the issuance of the writ, the property of the trustees, and not liable to seizure and condemnation under the attachment.

To the action of the Court in overruling this motion, this appeal was taken. The sole question for. this Court arises, therefore, out of the fact that, though the deed of trust was executed, delivered and recorded prior to the issuing and laying of the attachment, the bond of the trustees was not filed until afterwards. This involves the construction of Section 205 of Article 16 of the Code, by which it is provided that every trustee to whom any estate, real, personal or mixed, shall be limited or conveyed for the benefit of creditors, or to be sold for any other purpose, shall file with the Clerk of the

This is a preview of White v. Pittsburgh National Bank of Commerce. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.