Edelhoff v. Horner-Miller Straw-Goods Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 January 1898
• Parties: EDELHOFF et al. v. HORNER-MILLER STRAW-GOODS MFG. CO. OF BALTIMORE CITY et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

39 A. 314

86 Md. 595

EDELHOFF et al. v. HORNER-MILLER STRAW-GOODS MFG. CO. OF BALTIMORE CITY et al.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 4, 1898

Appeal from court of common pleas.

Replevin by Charles A. Edelhoff and another against the Horner-Miller Straw-Goods Manufacturing Company and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

Argued before MCSHERRY, C.J., and FOWLER, BOYD, and PAGE, JJ.

Steiner & Putzel, for appellants. W. Burns Trundle, Thomas G. Hayes and James P. Gorter, for appellees.

PAGE J.

The appellees have moved to dismiss this appeal, upon the ground that the bill of exception was not signed by the judge within the time allowed by the statute, and this motion will be first considered. The verdict was rendered on the 20th of April, 1897. On the 7th of May the parties agreed that the time for signing and sealing the exception should be extended for the period of 30 days from that date, and on the 17th of May the court so ordered. On the 28th of May the parties again agreed there should be a further extension until the 15th of June, and on the 29th May the court passed an order in conformity with the agreement. On the 10th of June the court ordered another extension until the 28th of June. On the 23d of June the appellees filed a protest against the signing and sealing of any bill of exception, for the reasons therein stated. The court, however, sua sponte, on the 20th June further extended the time until the 20th of August. Both parties agreed at the argument that the bill of exceptions was signed and sealed, and filed on the 18th of August. The question presented depends upon the proper construction of article 4 § 170, Code Pub. Loc. Laws. That section provides that bills of exception "may be signed" at any time within 30 days after the rendition of the verdict, etc., "but, not thereafter," unless the time for signing the same "shall have been previously extended by order of court or by consent of parties," etc. The power of the court is here defined with respect to the time at which bills of exception may be signed. The court is given power to sign within 30 days after verdict, or thereafter, when the time therefor has been previously extended by its own order or by the consent of parties. The effect of the consent of parties in cases where the 30 days have expired, and there has been no previous order of extension, is to confer upon the court the same authority to sign as if there had previously been an order of extension. Aside from the statute, the judge who tried the case had power to sign and seal bills of exception at any time during the term at which the trial occurred, but by express permission of the court given during the term he could sign after the term. If presented after the term, and the parties consent that he shall sign, both parties are afterwards estopped from raising an objection as to his right and power. Thomas v. Ford, 63 Md. 348. This statute embodies this principle of estoppel against the consenting parties, and converts what had theretofore been a matter of practice into a statutory requirement. We cannot, therefore agree with the contention that the orders of the 17th May and of the 29th May were inoperative, because of the consent of parties previously given that the extension contained in them should be allowed. Consent alone cannot be the same as a judicial order. The former is quite sufficient to raise an estoppel, but the latter is an act demanding the exercise of discretion and judgment. Even though the parties consent, it is within the authority of the judge to refuse to sign, in cases where, in the exercise of a judicial discretion, he deems it consistent with justice so to do. It is as dangerous now as it ever was "to allow a bill of exceptions of matters dependent upon memory at a distant period, when he may not accurately recollect them," as was said many years ago by Chief Justice Marshall in Ex parte Bradstreet, 4 Pet. 102. Wheeler v. Briscoe, 44 Md. 311; Association, etc., v. Grant, 41 Md. 564; Village of Marseilles v. Howland, 34 Ill.App. 350. In this case the first order of extension was passed within the 30 days, and the second within the period of extension; both of these upon the consent of parties. The subsequent extensions were made by the court within the life of the preceding orders. It is therefore within the rulings of this court in Gottlieb v. Fred W. Wolf Co., 75 Md. 126, 23 A. 198. For these reasons, the motion to dismiss the appeal must be overruled.

This is an action of replevin, in which the appellants are seeking to recover the possession of certain goods and chattels from the appellees, who are trustees under a deed of trust for the benefit of creditors from the Horner-Miller Straw-Goods Manufacturing Company of Baltimore City, which will be hereinafter referred to as the "corporation." The articles replevied are ribbon bands, suitable to be used in the manufacture of hats. They were ordered by the corporation from the appellants in the month of May, 1895, and were delivered, from time to time, from the 2d day of August up to the 6th of September following. The pleas of the appellees are non cepit, property in Shethar & Sanford, and property in the trustees. The appellants offered evidence tending to prove --First, that the corporation was insolvent at the time of the purchase, and that its officers knew or had good reason to know, of its insolvency, and had no reasonable expectation of paying the bill at maturity; and, secondly, that before the goods were delivered the president and secretary induced the appellants to deliver the goods by means of certain fraudulent representations as to the corporation's business and its ability to pay its debts. It also appeared in proof that on the 31st of August, 1895, the corporation executed and delivered a chattel mortgage to Shethar & Sanford, which was not recorded until the 16th of September, and it is claimed by the appellants that this mortgage is fraudulent and void as against them, for reasons that will be more fully referred to hereafter. There were many prayers asked for on the trial,--the appellants having presented 28, and the appellees 10,--and it is to the action of the court in disposing of them that this appeal is taken. The appellee interposed special exceptions to many of the prayers of the appellants, and these will now be considered.

In the first and eighth instructions asked by the appellants, one of the facts upon which the plaintiffs' right of recovery depended was that it was agreed between the parties "at the time" of the making of the chattel mortgage that the same was not to be recorded, and the special exception is there was no legally sufficient evidence of such agreement. It must be noted that the prayer requires the jury to find there was such agreement, and that it was entered into at the time the mortgage was made. Now, there was evidence tending to prove there was an agreement of such a character made at a time which does not appear, and the court, in the appellants' second and thirteenth prayers, instructed the jury upon that condition of the proof. If there was such agreement made after the execution and delivery of the mortgage for a valid consideration, and for the purpose of deceiving the creditors of the corporation, it was a fraud, and the mortgage in that event would offer no obstruction to the plaintiffs' right of recovery. This the court rightly ruled in granting these last-mentioned prayers. But the first and eighth prayers of the appellants go much further. They are based upon the theory that evidence had gone to the jury from which they could find that such agreement was made at or before the making of the mortgage. We do not think this theory can be maintained. The testimony of Mr. Putzel substantially is that at a meeting of the creditors of the corporation, at which either Shethar or Sanford was present, he heard that there was an agreement not to record the mortgage. Conceding, however, that Shethar or Sanford was present, and, having heard the statement, was bound in foro conscientiae to reply, there is nothing in the statement that could warrant the jury in finding that the agreement was made at the time of the making of the mortgage. The same criticism may be made with respect to the evidence of Mr. Horner. He states: "The chattel mortgage was not to be recorded. That was understood. *** It was to be renewed every two weeks." He does not give the agreement, nor by whom it was so understood. If he intended that the agreement not to record was made prior to or contemporaneously with the mortgage, or that the agreement was a condition precedent to the completion of the transaction, it should have been stated in such terms as would enable the jury reasonably to draw such inferences. As the evidence stands, the understanding may have been on the part of Mr. Horner only, or it may have arisen after the transaction had been completed, or grown out of an intention on the part of Shethar & Sanford (known to Mr. Horner), which they were at liberty to carry out or not, at their own pleasure. Such testimony we do not think was sufficient to support the theory of these prayers.

The appellees also excepted specially, on the ground of want of evidence: First, to the 3d, 4th, 10th, 12th, and 15th prayers of the appellants, that at the time of the execution of the chattel mortgage it was agreed that the mortgagors were to remain in possession of the chattels conveyed, with the power to sell and dispose of them; second, to the 5th, that the mortgage was given for money to be advanced from time to time, after its execution and delivery; third, to the 6th that the mortgage was given in consideration of the payment of $25,000, and only $10,000 were in...