Frigidraft, Inc. v. Michel, 36
| Decision Date | 06 December 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 36,36 |
| Parties | FRIGIDRAFT, Inc. v. MICHEL et al. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Arthur R. Padgett, Baltimore, for appellant.
W. Giles Parker, Baltimore (Jos. Wase, Philander B. Briscoe and Daniel E. Klein, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARBURY, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.
The appellant corporation was placed in receivership by an order of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City on April 14, 1951, on the application of the appellee Michel. This appellee was an unsecured creditor, claiming $112.70 on open account for printed matter ordered and delivered to the appellant. The bill of complaint alleged that the appellant was insolvent, but did not ask for a dissolution, and was not filed under Article 23, Sec. 97, of the Code. The appellant filed an answer, admitting that the appellee was a creditor of the corporation, but only in the amount of $85, and denying that it was insolvent. Subsequently, Arthur Ross and Anna Ross, his wife, filed an intervening petition, repeating the allegation of insolvency, alleging that they had deposited with the appellant $415 'in trust' to reserve for them certain refrigeration equipment under a stipulation that if they were unable to obtain a beer license for their proposed tavern, the deposit would be returned. They stated in their petition that they were unable to obtain the license contemplated, and therefore were entitled to receive back the deposit, and had made demand for it. Testimony was taken, and the decree, after appointing a receiver, stated that in the event the appellant paid to Michel the amount of his claim, namely $112.70, and to the petitioners, Arthur and Anna Ross, the sum of $415 on or before ten days after date, and the costs of the proceeding, the receivership would be dismissed. From this decree the appeal was taken here.
It has been held by this court, and by courts in many other jurisdictions, that the aid of a receiver will not be extended to creditors who have not fully exhausted their remedies at law, whose rights rest merely upon alleged contracts not yet reduced to judgment, and who have acquired no liens upon the property of the debtor. The statement of the rule as to individuals, and the cases and authorities for it are fully discussed in Blake v. Gorsuch, 166 Md. 647, 654-655, 171 A. 862. The rule is applied in the federal courts to corporate as well as individual debtors,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Surrey Inn, Inc. v. Jennings
...the amended bill was sustained by Judge Barrett on June 8, 1956, in an opinion in which he held, on the authority of Frigidraft, Inc. v. Michel, 198 Md. 509, 84 A.2d 695, that a creditor who had neither reduced his claim to judgment nor acquired a lien on the property of the defendant corpo......
-
Ledford Const. Co. v. Smith
...did not seek the dissolution of Lloyd. Del-Mar-Va Hardware Corp. v. Boss Mfg. Co., 230 Md. 477, 187 A.2d 693 (1963); Frigidraft, Inc. v. Michel, 198 Md. 509, 84 A.2d 695; Code (1939), Art. 23, § 97; Code (1957), Art. 23, § 80. Nor need we determine the sufficiency of the allegations seeking......
-
Del-Mar-Va Hardware Corp. v. Boss Mfg. Co., DEL-MAR-VA
...obtained a judgment or a lien. Absent this, a creditor is not, under the cases, entitled to have a receiver appointed. Frigidraft, Inc. v. Michel, 198 Md. 509, 84 A.2d 695; Blake v. Gorsuch, 166, Md. 647, 171 A. 862, and cases Orders reversed, with costs. 1 It is to be noted that the standa......
-
Seci, Inc. v. Chafitz, Inc., 1520
...39 A. 320 (1898), and cases cited therein; Perlmutter v. Minskoff, 196 Md. 99, 111, 75 A.2d 129 (1950); and cf. Frigidraft, Inc. v. Michel, 198 Md. 509, 84 A.2d 695 (1951), dealing with the appointment of a receiver. The rule is a necessary complement to the more basic system we have of est......