Devereux v. Berger, 180
Decision Date | 30 April 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 180,180 |
Citation | 253 Md. 264,252 A.2d 469 |
Parties | C. Kemp DEVEREUX v. Irving D. BERGER. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Joe M. Kyle, Silver Spring (Heise, Kyle & Jorgensen, Silver Spring, on the brief), for appellant.
James J. Cromwell, Silver Spring (John P. Arness and Raymond E. Vickery, Jr., Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HAMMOND, C. J., and MARBURY, McWILLIAMS, FINAN and SMITH, JJ.
Appellant (Devereux) was held in contempt of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for violation of the terms of an interlocutory injunction. We shall affirm the action of the trial court.
Devereux was the president of Metropolitan Acceptance Corporation (Metropolitan), a Maryland corporation. Appellee (Berger) was a secured creditor of Metropolitan. In October of 1966 Berger apparently did not entertain as high an opinion of Metropolitan, its president and its operations as he did when he loaned $60,000.00 to that corporation on March 3, 1964, under a security agreement which gave him a continuing security interest in certain assets of that corporation. Berger brought suit for his debt in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. After Devereux was twice returned non est, Berger entered this suit in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County against Metropolitan. At his request that court passed an order providing in part:
'PROVIDED, the Plaintiff first furnish bond to the State of Maryland in the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) and
'PROVIDED, that the Defendant is given leave to move on not more than two days notice on the Plaintiff for a hearing hereon, and
'PROVIDED, that this Injunction shall expire on the 28th day of October, 1966.'
The ex parte injunction was extended on October 26 to November 7. Counsel for Metropolitan consented to an interlocutory injunction which was passed on November 4, 1966, in the following terms:
'ORDERED, that the Defendant, METROPOLITAN ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, and its President, C. KEMP DEVEREUX, and all its agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns and any and all persons in action, concert or participation with it, be and they are hereby enjoined and restrained, from the time this Order shall be served upon them until a hearing hereon, from any liquidation, dissipation or dissolution of the assets of the Defendant corporation and from engaging in any course of conduct designed to impair, diminish or destroy the present assets of the corporation, and from taking any action in fraud of creditors, including the Plaintiff herein, and from performing any acts which are in derogation of the Security Agreement referred to in the Bill of Complaint herein, and it is further
'ORDERED, that the Defendant is given leave to move on not more than two days notice on the Plaintiff for a hearing herein.'
The facts in this case are not disputed. A certified public accountant examined the books as of August 31, 1966, (prior to any injunction) and as of April, 1967. There was a reduction in an account receivable from Blair TV (apparently another company of Devereux) in the intervening period without any consequent increase in cash. In fact, the amount of cash declined in that period by approximately $2000.00. In April of 1967 there was on deposit the sum of $6432.00 with American Savings and Trust Company. On a later attachment by Berger on a judgment he recovered against Metropolitan in another proceeding, this had become approximately $800.00. The explanation of Devereux was that about $4000.00 of this sum was in the possession of his secretary. With reference to the remainder he said:
'I would assume, and here again I am not prepared to give exact data on it, but in the process of converting our accounts receivable into cash-of course we are an operating company, the amounts of money coming in today are not very considerable and they are generally not sufficient to cover the operating cost-I would assume and I feel fairly certain that a good deal of this money will be expended on the normal operations...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pantazes v. Pantazes
...268 Md. 318, 328, 301 A.2d 12, 18 (1973); Little v. First Federated Life, 267 Md. 1, 6, 296 A.2d 372, 375 (1972); Devereux v. Berger, 253 Md. 264, 269, 252 A.2d 469, 471 (1969). Thus, when interpreting [an] ... agreement, this Court is "bound to give effect to the plain meaning of the langu......
-
Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Associates Ltd. Partnership
...meant what they expressed. Board of Trustees of State Colleges v. Sherman, 280 Md. 373, 380, 373 A.2d 626 (1977); Devereux v. Berger, 253 Md. 264, 269, 252 A.2d 469 (1969); Bernstein v. Kapneck, 46 Md.App. 231, 244, 417 A.2d 456 (1980), aff'd, 290 Md. 452, 430 A.2d 602 (1981). In such a cas......
-
Bowie v. Mie
...regard to the consequences of that enforcement."); Post v. Bregman, 349 Md. 142, 169, 707 A.2d 806, 819 (1998); Devereux v. Berger, 253 Md. 264, 269, 252 A.2d 469, 471 (1969); Central Sav. Bank of Balt. v. Post, 192 Md. 371, 381, 64 A.2d 275, 279 (1949) ("[Equitable principles] may affect t......
-
Bruce v. Dyer
...268 Md. 318, 328, 301 A.2d 12, 18 (1973); Little v. First Federated Life, 267 Md. 1, 6, 296 A.2d 372, 375 (1972); Devereux v. Berger, 253 Md. 264, 269, 252 A.2d 469, 471 (1969). Thus, when interpreting a separation agreement, this Court is 'bound to give effect to the plain meaning of the l......