Wolfsheimer v. Rivinus

1 A. 128, 64 Md. 230, 1885 Md. LEXIS 30
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedJuly 22, 1885
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 A. 128 (Wolfsheimer v. Rivinus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wolfsheimer v. Rivinus, 1 A. 128, 64 Md. 230, 1885 Md. LEXIS 30 (Md. 1885).

Opinions

Irving, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The sole question in this case is, whether the reservation of a reasonable fee for the draughtsman of the deed, for its preparation, is such a preference in a deed for the benefit of creditors, as is forbidden by the Insolvent Act of 1884, ch. 295. The language of that Act is very general and covers every species of debt, and we see no escape from holding that the reservation made in this deed is within the prohibition of that Act. The debtor who was in failing circumstances, employed the draughtsman. No one else could, for there was no trustee to do it until the deed was made. It was his debt or he could not charge his estate in the hands of a trustee, with its payment as he did do by the deed. He ought to have paid the draughtsman and left no debt outstanding for the service rendered, to be paid in full from his estate as a preference debt. The question turns entirely on the construction of the Act of Assembly, and, in determining what kind of debt is contemplated by and embraced in it, we find no occasion to cite authority in support of our view. If this deed had never been executed, there can be no question that the draughtsman would have had a proper claim against his employer, notwithstanding the deed had never been executed. Its execution could not change the character of the claim unless there had been a special contract to that effect. The fee for preparing this deed was beyond question a debt of the grantor, and though created in an attempt to provide for his creditors, we find no warrant for excepting it from the operation of the Act. A majority of the Court thinking the order of the insolvent Court of Baltimore City appealed from Avas properly passed, the same will be affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Harold J. Abrams v. United States
274 F.2d 8 (Eighth Circuit, 1960)
August v. Calloway
35 F. 381 (U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Georgia, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 A. 128, 64 Md. 230, 1885 Md. LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolfsheimer-v-rivinus-md-1885.