MAY 1802 Kirwan Latour As to what things lief of sundry insolvent debtors, in which the plaintiff's name was included, who on the 11th of January 1800, filed his petition in the office of the court of chancery praying to be admitted to the benefit of the said law, annexed to his petition was a schedule of his property, and among other property therein enumerated, are "a still-house and apparatus, and utensils for carrying on a distillery." That the person of the plaintiff was released by the chancellor on the 13th of February 1802, and John Coulter was appointed his trustee. That by the 8th section of the said act of insolvency, the trustee may sue for, in his own name, and recover, any property or debts assigned to him by any debtor in virtue of the said law. That the writ in this cause issued on the 13th of September 1800, after the plaintiff had been included in, and had applied for the benefit of the said law. are considered fix- what by a vendor. He prayed the court to direct the jury, that the plaintiff can only support an action for damages for the use of the property to the sd of January 1800, and that for the value of the property an action can only be supported in the name of the trustee. Harper, for the plaintiff, contended, that as no deed had been made to the trustee, the plaintiff may sustain the action; and that there was no evidence even of the acceptance of the trust by the trustee. CHASE, Ch. J. The legal right to the property remains in the plaintiff until there is an acceptance of the trust by the trustee, and a deed of assignment executed by the insolvent debtor, transferring all his property to his trustee. The person of the plaintiff is discharged, but he is still liable to be sued, and execution may go against his person and property. 2. Hollingsworth then moved the court to direct the What jury, that the apparatus and utensils for carrying on by a tenant, and a distillery were fixtures annexed to the freehold, and passed by the sheriff's sale and deed to the defendant. That as the defendant had purchased the still-house, the fixtures passed by the sale, as the sheriff's deed describes it as a lot of land, &c. with the improvements thereon." Kirwan Harper contended, that whatever is part of the im- MAY 1802 plements of a trade may be removed, and are not fixed to the freehold, and are always so considered between landlord and tenant. He cited 1 Atk. 477, to shew what passes with the freehold. CHASE, Ch. J. The question arises upon the operation of the schedule annexed to the fieri facias, and the sheriff's deed. It must be considered as a case between vendor and vendee, the sheriff standing in the place of vendor, and selling his right. In this case every thing passed which was annexed to the freehold. If the deed had been for the conveyance of the house and lot only, without mentioning the improvements, it would have carried all things fixed to the freehold. The case of vendor and vendee is different from that of landlord and tenant. In the latter case the law allows the tenant to remove many things which may be considered as fixed. This is for the benefit of trade; and where a tenant puts up any thing for the purpose of carring on his trade, he may remove it. The pumps, cisterns, iron grating, and door, distillery and horse mills, passed by this deed, but not the joists, vats, buckets, pickets and fossits, which are not fixed to the freehold. The Ch. J. cited Esp. 358, 359. Salk. 368. Bull. N. P. 84. Verdict for the plaintiff, and damages assessed to 418/ 178 6d current money, Judgment on the verdict, VE Latour GENERAL COURT, MAY TERM, 1802. EJECTMENT for Cooke's Adventure Resurveyed, where deeds des fectively acknowledged by a feme covert grantor, were held not to pass the estate in the land to the of land lying in Baltimore county. The following MAY 1802 Jacob VI Kruner. executed, devised the same in fee simple to his daughter Mary Monk, who after his death in virtue of the said devise entered upon and was seised of the said lands, and intermarried with one William Jacob on the 19th of July 1772. That the said Mary died in the life time of the said William, her husband, some time in the year 1781, and that the said William died some time in the year 1790. That Rinaldo Jacob, the lessor of the plaintiff, is the eldest son and heir at law of the said William and Mary. That in the lifetime of the said William and Mary, they executed two deeds to the defendant, the first, dated the 18th of April 1776, for part of two tracts of land, viz. part of Cooke's Adventure Resurveyed, and part of Angell's Fortune, was acknowledged as follows, to wit: "Baltimore county, sc. Came William Jacob, and Mary his wife, before us the subscribers, two of the Lord Proprietary's justices of the peace for the county aforesaid, and severally acknowledged the within instrument of writing to be their act and deed, and the lands within mentioned to be the right and estate of the within named Michael Kraner, his heirs and assigns, for ever. At the same time the said Mary, the wife of William Jacob, being privately examined apart from and out of the hearing of her said husband, did declare she made the said acknow. ledgment of her own free will and consent, without being induced thereto by any threats of her husband, or fear of his displeasure. Before us, James Clarke, Wm. Russell." The other deed, dated the 28th of March 1780, for Cooke's Adventure Resurveyed, was acknowledged as follows, viz. Baltimore county, to wit: On the 28th of March 1780, before the subscribers, two justices of the peace in and for the county aforesaid, came William Jacob, and acknowledged the within bargained and sold land and premises to be the right and estate of the within named Michael Kraner, his heirs and assigns, for ever. At the same time came Mary Ja cob, wife of the said William Jacob, and being by us privately examined apart from and out of the hearing of her said husband, acknowledged all her right and title to the within bargained and sold land and premises, to be the right and estate of the within named Michael Kraner, his heirs and assigns, for ever; and that she made this acknowledgment of her own free and voluntary will and accord, without being induced thereto by fear of threats of her said husband, or through fear of his displeasure. Geo. Lindenberger, Both deeds were recorded on the day of their respective dates. That the defendant by virtue of the said deeds entered upon and has possessed the said lands therein. mentioned since that time. The lease, entry, and ouster, as laid in the ejectment, are also admitted; and if upon the whole, &c. Martin, (Attorney General,) for the Plaintiff. The question in this case arose on the form of the acknowledgments, made by the feme covert grantor to the deeds above stated. THE GENERAL COURT gave judgment upon the case stated, for the plaintiff, for possession and costs. MAY 1802 Jacob Kraner, GENERAL COURT, MAY TERM, 1802. PEDDICOART's Lessee vs. RIGGES. EJECTMENT for a tract of land called The Inva Where a deed defectively ac sion, lying in Anne Arundel county. The defendant knowledged by a took defence for all the land included in the deed to feme covert grantor was held not to pass a title in the land to the him from William Peddicoart, and Sophia his wife, as grantee." located on the plots returned in the cause. The plaintiff at the trial, offered in evidence a patent for the land called The Invasion, granted to Adam MAY 1802 Peddicoart VS Rigges Barnes on the 24th of September 1747, for 1187 acres, which is truly located on the said plots. He also proved that Adam Barnes, the grantee of the said land, executed a deed to Sophia Peddicoart, on the 22d of October 1764, for 131 acres, part of the said land, whereby he conveyed to the said Sophia Peddicoart, and the heirs of her body lawfully begotten, for ever, the said land, which said land is truly located on the plots. He also proved that the lessor of the plaintiff is the issue in tail and heir of the body of the said Sophia Peddicoart. The defendant then offered evidence that the said Sophia was married to William Peddicoart, and that they executed a deed to the defendant on the 9th of June 1778(a), for a moiety of the tract of land called The Invasion, which said deed was acknowledged as follows, viz: "Baltimore county, 9th day of June 1778, then came before us, two justices of the peace for the county aforesaid in the state of Maryland, the within named William and Sophia Peddicoart. and severally acknowledged the within indenture to be their act and deed, and the land and premises therein mentioned to be the right and estate of the within named James Rigges, his heirs and assigns, for ever. Taken and acknowledged, according to the act of assembly in that case made and provided, before us, the day and year above written. John Cradock, The said deed was duly recorded on the 19th of June 1778, in the records of Anne-Arundel county, having a certificate annexed by the clerk of Baltimore county court, that Mess. Cradock and Cromwell were justices of the peace, &c. duly commissioned and sworn. It was proved that the said William Peddicoart, and Sophia his wife, were both dead before the bringing the present ejectment. Whereupon the plaintiff prayed the opinion of the court, and their direction to the jury, that the said (a) The first act of assembly which directed that a common deed of bargain and sale should operate in the same manner as a common recovery to bar an estate tail, passed in June 1773, ch. I. |