Clark v. Renninger

• Decision Date: 14 March 1899
• Citation: 42 A. 928,89 Md. 66
• Parties: CLARK et al. v. RENNINGER et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

42 A. 928

89 Md. 66

CLARK et al. v. RENNINGER et al.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 14, 1899

Appeal from circuit court, Garrett county, in equity; David W Sloan, Judge.

Petition by John J. Beeghly (Julius C. Renninger and another substituted as his trustees for the benefit of his creditors) for the appointment of a receiver for Clark & McCulloh. From an order ratifying certain audits in the auditor's report, discharging the receiver appointed under the petition, defendants appeal. Reversed.

Argued before MCSHERRY, C.J., and PEARCE, PAGE, ROBERTS, BRISCOE and SCHMUCKER, JJ.

Gilmore S. Hamill and Robert H. Gordon, for appellants. Thomas I Peddicord and Julius C. Renninger, for appellees.

BRISCOE J.

This is a proceeding under chapter 108, Acts 1878, codified as sections 145-149, art. 12, Code Pub. Loc. Laws, known as the "Manufacturers' and Miners' Law of Garrett County." The 145th section of this act provides "If any individual engaged in mining or manufacturing in said county, or any association or body corporate engaged in any business whatever, therein, shall for the space of thirty days be indebted to the persons in their employ, or to furnishers of any raw material, in the aggregate sum of twenty-five dollars, and shall neglect or refuse to pay the same for the space of thirty days, the circuit court for said county, as a court of equity or the judge thereof in vacation, shall upon the petition of the employees or furnishers of raw material or any number of them appoint a receiver to take charge of the affairs of such individual, association or body corporate, with a view to their liquidation and settlement." On the 15th of October, 1896, John J. Beeghly, a citizen of Garrett county, filed a petition in the circuit court of that county, wherein it is stated that he was in the employ of, and a furnisher of raw materials for, the defendants, Clark & McCulloh, manufacturers of lumber and tan bark in Garrett county; that they were indebted to him in a sum aggregating more than $2,000, and have been so indebted for more than 30 days; and prayed for the appointment of a receiver under the provisions of the act. On the 17th of October, a receiver was appointed and qualified. Subsequently, on the 20th of October, the defendants filed an answer, denying the allegations of the petition, and alleging "that the plaintiff was not an employé or a furnisher of raw material, within the meaning of the act, for the reason that he was distinctly a contractor, and was to receive a certain contract price upon the performance on his part of the terms of the agreement; that he was not a furnisher of raw material, because the timber from the land which he was cutting belonged to the defendants, and not the contractor." By an agreement between the parties, the receiver was discharged, and the case referred to the auditor to take testimony and to make a report; and from an order of the court ratifying certain audits this appeal has been taken.

In the view we take of the case, it will not be necessary for us to decide all the questions raised on the appeal. If the circuit court for Garrett county had no jurisdiction, under the local statute, to entertain this case, then the order or decree will have to be reversed, and the plaintiff's petition dismissed. Chapter 108, Acts 1878, applies in express terms "to persons in their employ, or to furnishers of any raw material." There can be no question that the plaintiff does not come within that part of the act which relates to furnishers of raw material, because it appears from the contract that the material to be furnished belonged to the defendants; and, unless he was an employé or "a person in their employ," h...