Crawford v. Austin

• Decision Date: 10 February 1871
• Citation: 34 Md. 49
• Parties: WILLIAM H. CRAWFORD, COLUMBUS S. CROOK and JAMES B. CRAWFORD, trading as W. H. CRAWFORD & Co. v. THEODORE G. AUSTIN, DELOZIER DAVIDSON, T. N. CONRAD, ISAAC MCCURLEY, JOSHUA T. YOUNG, JOHN R. RIDGELY, and others.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

34 Md. 49

WILLIAM H. CRAWFORD, COLUMBUS S. CROOK and JAMES B. CRAWFORD, trading as W. H. CRAWFORD & Co. v. THEODORE G. AUSTIN, DELOZIER DAVIDSON, T. N. CONRAD, ISAAC MCCURLEY, JOSHUA T. YOUNG, JOHN R. RIDGELY, and others.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

February 10, 1871

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., STEWART, BRENT, GRASON and ROBINSON, J.

Robert G. Keene and John Henry Keene, Jr. for the appellants.

Thos. J. McKaig, Jr. and E. Otis Hinkley for the appellees.

BRENT J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

This appeal is from a decree of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, dismissing the bill of complaint filed by the appellants, for the purpose of setting aside a deed of trust from T. G. Austin and Delozier Davidson, of the firm of T. G. Austin & Co., to T. N. Conrad and Isaac McCurley. The deed is an assignment for the benefit of creditors, with preferences and exacting releases.

The two grounds set forth in the bill, upon which the complainants rely in support of their application, are:

1st. That John R. Ridgely was a member of the firm of T. G. Austin & Co., with Austin & Davidson, and that he did not unite in the deed.

2d. That the preference of Joshua T. Young, as a creditor for $1,550.03, is false and fraudulent--he in fact not being a creditor of the firm at the time.

The only proof that Ridgely was a partner, is found in the testimony of Austin and his statements, after the execution of the deed, to two of the witnesses. He seemed to consider him a partner, but the force of his statement, in that regard, is wholly destroyed, when the ground upon which it was made is disclosed in his testimony. He states in answer to the third and fourth interrogatories, that he considered Ridgely a member of the firm, because "he received a third interest of the profits of the business for services rendered as a salesman." This certainly does not constitute him a partner. Whatever may have been the impression of the witness, and his statement to others founded upon that impression, the position of Ridgely with the firm was nothing more than that of an employee. His duties were those of salesman, for which the firm had agreed to pay him one-third of their profits. On the other hand Ridgely in his testimony proves that he never was a partner and Austin says, the articles of partnership, under which the firm of T. G. Austin & Co. was formed,...