First Nat. Bank of Catonsvtlle v. Carter

• Decision Date: 17 January 1918
• Docket Number: No. 41.,41.
• Citation: 132 Md. 218,103 A. 463
• Parties: FIRST NAT. BANK OF CATONSVTLLE v. CARTER.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

103 A. 463

132 Md. 218

FIRST NAT. BANK OF CATONSVTLLE

v. CARTER.

No. 41.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 17, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Baltimore County; Frank I. Duncan, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Suit by M. Fillmore Carter against the First National Bank of Catonsville. From decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before BOYD, C. J., and BRISCOE, BURKE, THOMAS, PATTISON, URNER, STOCKBRIDGE, and CONSTABLE, JJ.

Lewis W. Lake and Edwin J. Farber, both of Baltimore, for appellant. Harry E. Karr, of Baltimore, for appellee.

CONSTABLE, J. The points raised by this appeal present questions, in our opinion, simple and easy of solution. The appellee filed a bill in which he prayed the court to grant an injunction perpetually restraining the appellant from levying or attempting to levy an execution on property described in the bill, and to clear his property of a cloud upon his title. The bill alleged that, being desirous of acquiring by purchase a certain lot of ground adjoining the property whereon he resided, in Baltimore county, he authorized a Mrs. Adele Callow to secure it from the owner thereof; that Mrs. Callow, so acting as his agent, did purchase the lot for $1,200 from the. owner, using the money of the appellee for the purpose; that, on the day the purchase money was paid over, a deed conveying the property to her was executed, and on that same day she conveyed the property to the appellee, and the two deeds were sent to the record office to be recorded; that after the conveyances the appellee learned that a judgment for $770.88 against Mrs. Callow and in favor of the appellant had been entered in the circuit court for Baltimore county before the conveyance to Mrs. Callow, and was still on the docket of said court unsatisfied; that the appellant claimed the property was subject to the lien of the said judgment, and had threatened that unless the appellee satisfied the judgment it would issue execution on the property; that the appellee had explained to the appellant the true state of facts as to the conveyance, and offered to present all evidence supporting his representations, but the appellant continues to threaten execution.

The injunction was issued as prayed. The appellant answered, and his whole defense is embodied in the following allegations:

"(a) That the said Adele Callow, at the time of the execution of the deed by Arthur W. Robson and Julia M. Robson, his wife, to her, did take and actually hold a beneficial interest in the property therein described.

"(b) That the said complainant M. Fillmore Carter does not come into this court with clean hands, as, according to the bill of complaint, he alleges that the said Adele Callow was his agent, and acting upon his instructions deliberately defrauded the said Robson and his wife in her dealings with them as his agent, and is therefore not entitled to any relief in this court.

"(c) That the said M. Fillmore Carter, on October 29, 1915, at the respondent's bank, stated to one Arthur C. Montell, the cashier of the bank, that said Adele Callow had purchased the property from said Robson, and that he had purchased the property from Mrs. Callow on October 28, 1915, and, relying upon this statement, your respondent issued an execution on the property aforesaid, and has been occasioned expense and actual labor, and therefore the said M. Fillmore Carter should be estopped from denying the allegations which ho made, which your respondent acted upon, and which would now he to its prejudice and injury."

...