Barton v. Bridges

• Decision Date: 10 November 1915
• Docket Number: 7.
• Citation: 95 A. 959,126 Md. 676
• Parties: BARTON v. BRIDGES et ux.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

95 A. 959

126 Md. 676

BARTON v. BRIDGES et ux.

No. 7.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

November 10, 1915

Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County, in Equity; M. L Keedy, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Exceptions of Wason Barton to the auditor's accounts, disallowing his judgment as a claim to be paid from the proceeds of property conveyed by J. Taliaferro Bridges and wife, for the benefit of creditors, were overruled, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Albert J. Long, of Hagerstown (John T. Mason, of Hagerstown, on the brief), for appellant.

Frank G. Wagaman, of Hagerstown (Wagaman & Wagaman, of Hagerstown on the brief), for appellees.

BRISCOE J.

On the 28th of October, 1912, the appellees executed a deed of trust, for the benefit of creditors, to F. Wilbur Bridges and J. Augustine Mason of Washington county, to sell and dispose of the grantor's property and to apply the money and proceeds to the payment of the debts, claims, and demands whatsoever for which the grantor, J. Taliaferro Bridges should be liable, according to their priority and standing in law. The appellant is a holder of a judgment against the appellee for $941.22, with interest from March 12, 1911, with certain credits thereon, as will appear from the record thereof, obtained at the February term, 1911, of the circuit court for Washington county, and which was filed, with the auditor of the circuit court for that county, as a judgment claim and lien, to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the property, sold by the trustees. This judgment was disallowed by the auditor, in the distribution of the proceeds of sale of the appellees' property, and this appeal is from certain orders passed by the circuit court for Washington county, overruling the appellant's exceptions to auditors' accounts No. 1 and No. 2, and the order of court, dated the 8th day of February, 1915, finally ratifying and confirming auditors' account No. 2, directing the trustee to pay out the funds in accordance with the distribution made therein, and disallowing the appellant's judgment claim.

The single question in the case is whether the court below was right in its determination that the appellant was not entitled to distribution from the proceeds of sale on the alleged judgment claim, held by him against the appellee under the facts of the case. The appellee contends and the proof shows that some time prior to the audit, on the 25th of January, 1913, the appellant signed and delivered to the appellee an order, directing the judgment here in question to be released and satisfied. The order is as follows:

Wason Barton v. J. Taliaferro Bridges Mr. Oswald, Clerk:

Will please enter the judgment in the above entitled cause satisfied.

[Signed] Wason Barton.

Test: C. E. Carter.

January 25th, 1913.

Mr. Oswald the clerk of the court testified that this order was left with him to be filed, and the paper had been in his possession, since that date, but was not filed, because the costs were not paid. It is conceded that this order was signed by the appellant, but it is contended that his signature thereto was procured by fraud and misrepresentation, and the judgment is a valid and prior lien, and should be paid out of the proceeds of sale of the appellees' property, in the hands of the trustees, for distribution among his creditors. Upon the part of the appellees, it is denied that any fraud was committed or practiced upon the appellant, in obtaining his signature to the order, and it is earnestly insisted upon their part that the signing of the order was in accordance with a settlement previously had between the parties, "in November, 1911," and that it was so understood by the appellant when he signed it as a release and satisfaction of the judgment in question.

It is clear that as the execution and signing of the order to the clerk by the appellant is admitted and conceded, the burden of proof rests upon him to establish the claim of fraud, set up and urged to avoid the legal effect of the release and satisfaction of the judgment here in question.

It is well settled that while a court of equity will at all times lend its aid to defeat a fraudulent transaction, fraud, like any other fact, must be established by satisfactory proof, and it will not be presumed. Ranstead v. Allen, 85 Md. 482, 37 A. 15; Willson v. Williams, 106 Md. 663, 68 A. 297, 598; Paper Bag Co. v. Carr, 116 Md. 550, 82 A. 442; Riggin v. Robinson,

117 Md. 84, 83 A. 143.

The proof of fraud, in the obtention of the appellant's signature to the order directing the clerk of the court to enter the judgment satisfied, does not measure up to the legal requirements cases of this character, and is too uncertain and insufficient to support the appellant's contention in this respect.

In Atlantic Delaine Co. v. James, 94 U.S. 207, 24 L.Ed 112, the Supreme Court, in speaking of the jurisdiction of a court of equity to set aside instruments...