Frey v. Shrewsbury Sav. Inst.
| Decision Date | 13 March 1882 |
| Citation | 58 Md. 151 |
| Parties | ALEXANDER J. FREY, Trustee v. THE SHREWSBURY SAVINGS INSTITUTION. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, in Equity.
The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., STONE, MILLER and IRVING, J.
J Alexander Preston, for the appellant.
D G. McIntosh, for the appellee.
In the year 1861, Wm. Meade Addison and R. R. Boarman, trustees sold a tract of land lying in Baltimore County, to Henry Latimer and Christof Kolter, and conveyed it to them as tenants in common. On the 7th of September, in the year 1878 Henry Latimer being then very much embarrassed, executed (his wife joining therein) a deed of trust of all his property to Alexander J. Frey, the appellant, for the benefit of all his creditors, with full power to sell the same, and distribute the proceeds among his creditors, according to their several equities. The interest of Latimer in the property conveyed to him, as tenant in common with Christof Kolter, passed under this deed to Frey, the trustee, and who, in the execution of his trust, duly sold the same, and reported the sale to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, as required by law.
The interest of Christof Kolter was sold at the same time, but by a different trustee, and both trustees having duly made their reports, the sales were finally ratified by that Court, on the 18th of June, 1880, and the case was referred to the auditor, to distribute the proceeds of the sale of the whole tract.
After the case was referred to the auditor, the Shrewsbury Savings Institution filed a petition in the case, alleging that before the purchase of the land by Latimer and Kolter, they had formed a copartnership, under the name of Kolter and Latimer, for the purpose of buying, working, and selling lands, and that although the land bought by them from Addison and Boarman, trustees, was conveyed to them as tenants in common, it was bought with the partnership funds, and was, in fact, the property of the firm of Kolter & Latimer, and was primarily liable for the debts of the firm. The said Savings Institution further alleged, that the firm of Kolter & Latimer was largely indebted to it, and claimed the payment of its debt out of the proceeds of sale.
Frey the trustee of Latimer, answered this petition, denying that the land was partnership property, or bought with partnership funds, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrew v. Sac County State Bank
... ... v. C., C. & W. R. Co. , 48 Iowa 518; State Cent. Sav ... Bank v. Ball-Bearing Chain Co. , 118 Iowa 698, 92 N.W ... 712; ... Assn. , 80 ... F. 969; Sutton v. Weber , 100 Ill.App. 360; Frey ... v. Shrewsbury Sav. Inst. , 58 Md. 151; Foreman v ... Defrees, ... ...
-
Preston v. Poe
...60 Md. 259; Lurman v. Hubner, 75 Md. 268, 23 A. 646; Haskie v. James, 75 Md. 568, 23 A. 1030; Stewart v. Codd, 58 Md. 86; Frey v. Shrewsbury Bank, 58 Md. 151; Glenn v. Reid, 74 Md. 238, 24 A. 155; 2 Cyc. 629. In the first of the cases just cited, which was relied upon by the appellant in th......
-
State ex rel. Miller v. People's State Bank
...v. Their Creditors, 12 La.Ann. 774; Bosworth v. Terminal R. Asso. 26 C.C.A. 279, 53 U.S. App. 302, 80 F. 969; 2 Cyc. 641. In Frey v. Shrewsbury Sav. Inst. 58 Md. 151, the court held that a conventional trustee appointed to sell property and distribute the proceeds among creditors has the ri......
-
Baltimore Trust Co. v. Canton Corn Products Co.
...an order which materially concerned the rights and interests thus held and represented. McHenry v. McVeigh, 56 Md. 578; Frey v. Shrewsbury Sav. Inst., 58 Md. 151; v. Malcolm, 15 Md. 529. The action of the trustee in taking the appeal is properly attributable to the existing capacity in whic......