Coakley v. Weil

• Decision Date: 20 June 1877
• Parties: DANIEL COAKLEY and MICHAEL COAKLEY, trading as COAKLEY BROTHERS v. MAYER S. WEIL, Trustee, Garnishee of CHARLES WIRSCHNITZER and JOHN RAPP.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

47 Md. 277

DANIEL COAKLEY and MICHAEL COAKLEY, trading as COAKLEY BROTHERS v. MAYER S. WEIL, Trustee, Garnishee of CHARLES WIRSCHNITZER and JOHN RAPP.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 20, 1877

DEEDS.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Baltimore City.

On March 14th, 1876, Charles Wirschnitzer and John Rapp co-partners, trading as Wirschnitzer and Rapp, executed a deed of trust of all their property, real, personal and mixed, to M. Star Weil, in trust for the benefit of their creditors, which as is admitted, was duly executed acknowledged and recorded.

The trustee, on the same day, filed his bond as trustee, with the clerk of the Superior Court of Baltimore City, which was duly approved. On the fourth day of May, 1876, the trustee filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, praying the Court for leave to carry out the administration of the said trust under its advice and direction. The Court on the same day assumed jurisdiction thereof, and ordered notice to be given to all creditors of the grantors to file their claims.

The appellants, plaintiffs below, obtained a judgment against Wirschnitzer and Rapp, on the eighth day of May, 1876, and on the ninth day of May, 1876, issued an attachment thereon which was laid in the hands of the appellee on the tenth day of May, 1876. The garnishee appeared to the attachment, and filed a plea of nulla bona, on which issue was joined.

The case was tried by the Court without the aid of a jury. The Court rendered a verdict and judgment for the garnishee, from which judgment the plaintiffs appealed.

Upon rendering its decision, the Court (DOBBIN, J.,) filed the following opinion:

"The claim of the plaintiffs to be paid out of the funds admitted to be in the hands of Mr. Weil, the garnishee depends upon the alleged invalidity of the deed of trust for the benefit of creditors, made by the defendants to Weil. That deed is assailed upon two grounds:

1st. That it exacts releases as the condition of participating in the distribution of the trust funds, but does not convey all the property of the grantors; and--

2nd. That it provides for an equal distribution ' pari passu and without any preference of payment' among all the creditors of the grantors, thus disregarding such rights as they might have inter sese growing out of the relations as partnership or individual creditors of the grantors.

The first objection was not strongly insisted upon, it being quite apparent...