Davis v. Harris
| Decision Date | 10 June 1936 |
| Docket Number | 44. |
| Citation | 185 A. 469,170 Md. 610 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. HARRIS ET AL. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City; Robert F Stanton, Judge.
Suit by Ida H. Davis, assignee, against Louis Harris and another. From an order sustaining defendants' demurrer, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before BOND, C.J., and URNER, OFFUTT, PARKE, SLOAN, MITCHELL SHEHAN, and JOHNSON, JJ.
William Saxon, of Baltimore (Samuel Greenfeld, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Morton M. Robinson, of Baltimore (Herman Samuelson and Jerome Robinson, both of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.
The allegations of the amended bill of complaint in this case are to the following effect:
Prior to December 8, 1926, A. Berkenfeld was the holder in due course of a promissory note for $383, maturing on that date signed by Louis Harris, one of the present defendants. Payment of the note having been demanded and refused, suit thereon was instituted on January 8, 1927, resulting in a judgment, entered on January 29, 1927, which is now held by the plaintiff in this litigation as assignee. When demand for the payment of the note was made at its maturity, and on numerous later occasions before suit upon it, the defendant Louis Harris, in refusing payment, threatened that, if suit were brought against him by the holder of the note, he would prevent its collection by disposing of all his real and personal property. When the note was executed, and for a number of years previously, Louis Harris was the owner of two leasehold properties located on Park Heights avenue in the city of Baltimore. While the holder of the note was negotiating with Harris for its payment, he carried out his threat by conveying all of his estate, consisting of the leasehold properties just mentioned, to Raymond A. Egner, without any consideration, and for the sole purpose of hindering and delaying the holder of the note in enforcing its collection. The deed from Harris to Egner was executed on December 23, 1926, fifteen days after the note matured, and fifteen days before the suit on it was instituted. Five days after its execution the deed was recorded. In "furtherance of the scheme to hinder, delay and defraud the creditors" of Harris a deed was executed by Egner on December 23, 1927, "retransferring" the two leasehold properties to Louis Harris and Estelle Harris, his wife, as tenants by the entireties, which deed was recorded on April 5, 1928. Subsequently Mr. and Mrs. Harris mortgaged one of the properties to the Druid Hill Perpetual Building Association to secure a loan of $1,300, and the other to the Maryland Casualty Company for an obligation to the amount of $1,000.
After making the averments which we have summarized, the bill alleges that the property of Louis Harris, here sued jointly with his wife, is not susceptible to execution in view of the transfers mentioned in the bill, and that the plaintiff, without the equitable intervention of the court, will be unable to obtain satisfaction of his judgment, which remains wholly unpaid. The specific relief prayed for is that the judgment be declared a lien upon the properties described in the bill subject to the mortgages to which it refers.
A demurrer to the bill of complaint interposed the defenses of laches and limitations. From an order sustaining the demurrer, without leave to amend the bill further, the plaintiff has appealed.
The defense of limitations is based upon section 1 of article 45 of the Code ( Laws...
To continue reading
Request your trial