Boyle v. Schindel
| Decision Date | 19 June 1879 |
| Parties | CHARLES B. BOYLE v. JONATHAN SCHINDEL. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County.
This was an action of debt brought by the appellee against the appellant. The narr. contained two counts. The first count recited an order of the Circuit Court in equity, in the case of Keedy v. Schindel, ratifying a sale to the defendant, and further directing the defendant, as purchaser to pay to Samuel E. Schindel, during his life-time, the annual interest on the mortgages to Judge Alvey and George Schindel, described in the proceedings, to wit, $208.82 annually; that this sum was due January 25, 1877, and was still unpaid; that Samuel E. Schindel, by a proper writing assigned to the plaintiff all the right, etc., in and to said interest, and the defendant was notified of said assignment but did not pay the said annual interest.
The second count recited that Samuel E. Schindel's father, by his will, directed his executors to pay to Samuel E. Schindel annually, the interest on a designated sum, which sum his father's executors secured by mortgages on Samuel's lands, which lands were sold to the defendant, who was ordered by said court to pay to Samuel E. Schindel, the annual interest on said mortgages, by the terms of the order ratifying the sale; that said Samuel assigned this legacy to the plaintiff, that the defendant was duly notified of said assignment, but did not pay the said interest.
To this narr. the defendant demurred, and the court (Motter and Pearre, JJ.,) overruled the demurrer. The defendant objected, that an action at law would not lie upon such order of a court of equity.
The defendant then filed seven pleas. Issue was joined on all save the third and fourth pleas, to which the plaintiff demurred, and his demurrer was ruled good.
In the progress of the trial the defendant took three exceptions which need not be set out. The verdict and judgment being for the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.
The cause was submitted on briefs to BARTOL, C.J., BOWIE, BRENT, MILLER and ROBINSON, JJ.
H. H. Keedy and Alexander Armstrong, for the appellant.
Louis E. McComas, for the appellee.
The demurrer was properly overruled. The decretal order sued on was of the dignity of a decree. Any order or decree finally settling any disputed right or interest of the parties, is a final decree. An order ratifying a sale amounts to a decree for the payment of money. Richardson v. Jones, 3 G. & J. 186; Ware v. Richardson, 3 Md. 555; Wyman v. Jones, 4 Md. Ch. 500; Freeman on Judgments, secs. 34, 36.
In Maryland, decrees and judgments are often referred to as of equal dignity. A court of equity like a court of law, is a court of record. Miles v. Gardner, 5 Gill, 100; Canal Co. v. Gittings, 36 Md. 276; State v. Ramsburg, 43 Md. 333, 335; Bruner v. Ramsburg, 43 Md. 567; Dorsey v. Garey, 30 Md. 494, and cases cited; Bank v. Thomas, 37 Md. 255.
An action of debt can be maintained on a judgment of a court of law. In this country, in every instance in which an action of debt can be maintained upon a judgment at law for a sum of money awarded by such judgment, the like action can be maintained upon a decree in equity, which is for an ascertained and specific amount, and nothing more, and the record of the proceedings in the one case must be ranked with and responded to as of the same dignity and binding obligation with the record of the other. Freeman on Judgments, sec. 434, and cases cited, note 4; Nations v. Johnson, 24 How. 203.
Nor is the action of debt used only on foreign decrees. In New York, in one case, this was the principal point discussed, and Ch. J. Savage says, He concludes that upon a final decree of the Surrogate, even debt will lie. Dubois v. Dubois, 6 Cow. 496; Pennington v. Gibson, 16 How. 78.
The primary and principal question presented on this appeal, decisive of all others in the case, is whether an action at law can be maintained in this State to recover a sum of money decreed to be paid by a court of equity within the same jurisdiction.
The general principle, that actions at law will lie on decrees of other States for the payment of money only out of and beyond their jurisdiction, is well established by authority both in England and the United States, but, broad propositions, originating in cases of this character, have been adopted and used by judges and text writers, so as to produce some confusion.
It was a cardinal rule of the courts of law in England, that no action at law should be brought to enforce a decree in chancery within its jurisdiction, but such actions were allowed and maintained on decrees of colonial courts.
The reason is obvious, that in the one case there was full power existing in the court which rendered the decree, to enforce it, and in the other the decree would be ineffectual, unless the courts of law recognized them as evidences of debt and made them effective by judgment and execution.
The leading cases cited and relied on by both appellant and appellee are Hugh v. Higgs, 8 Wheat. 697; Pennington v. Gibson, 16 How. 65, and Richardson v. Jones, 3 G. & J. 186.
The case of Hugh v. Higgs was decided by that eminent jurist, Chief Justice Marshall, all of whose opinions, however brief, are entitled to the most profound respect. His opinion relating to this subject is substantially as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Langville v. Langville
...of Baltimore City cannot be enforced by any proceeding in a court of law, but only by further proceedings in the equity court. In Boyle v. Schindel, 52 Md. 1, 7, an action of was brought in the Circuit Court for Washington County upon a money decree of the same court passed in an equity pro......
-
Alexander v. Alexander
...in this state to recover a sum of money decreed to be paid by a court of equity within the same jurisdiction. As was said in Boyle v. Schindel, 52 Md. 1, 7: 'Courts equity within their own jurisdiction have full power to issue judicial writs to enforce their decrees with equal economy and d......