Haid v. Haid

• Decision Date: 19 November 1934
• Docket Number: 13.
• Parties: HAID v. HAID.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

175 A. 338

167 Md. 493

HAID v. HAID.

No. 13.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

November 19, 1934

Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Albert S. J. Owens Judge.

Suit by Elizabeth V. Haid against Erema G. Haid. From a judgment for the defendant, the plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and new trial awarded.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.

Herbert L. Grymes and Charles H. Dorn, both of Baltimore, for appellant.

Milton Leven, of Baltimore, for appellee.

PATTISON Judge.

In this case, the appellee, Erema G. Haid, a former wife of William J. Haid, held a judgment against him, recovered before a justice of the peace, and recorded in the superior court of Baltimore City. Upon this judgment a writ of fieri facias was issued, and a motorboat named Betty V was seized and levied upon. Whereupon Elizabeth V. Haid, the present wife of William J. Haid, on the 15th day of July, 1933, filed her petition in the superior court of Baltimore City, in which she claimed the boat seized and levied upon to be "her property." To which claim, Erema G. Haid, the first wife, replied, alleging that "the boat was owned by William J. Haid," her former husband. Upon the issues so joined, evidence was taken, disclosing the following facts:

That some time prior to January 1, 1933, William J. Haid and Erema G. Haid were divorced, and on the day last named, William J Haid was married to the appellant, Elizabeth V. Haid. In March following, William J. Haid and Elizabeth V. Haid, his wife, went to the custom house and applied for the reregistration of the boat. In the application for reregistration, Haid directed that the boat be registered in the name of himself, Elizabeth V. Haid, and Robert E. Haid, a son by the former wife, and that the name of the boat be changed to Betty V, and the boat was reregistered in accordance with those directions, and a registration card was signed by Haid and left at the custom house. This was the status of the registered title of the boat at the time of the issuance of the execution and the seizure of the boat thereunder. The boat was less than five tons, and was therefore, not a documented boat or vessel, requiring a bill of sale therefor, and its recordation in the custom house, to establish in whom the title or ownership of the boat was vested. It was a motorboat, which by the federal statute (46 USCA § 288) required only registration, in which its number, as well as the names of its owners are required to be stated. The use and operation of such boats are subject to federal regulation and their registration, in the manner stated, aids the government in the enforcement of those regulations.

Elizabeth V. Haid, when placed upon the stand as a witness in her own behalf, testified that she accompanied her husband to the custom house and was present at the reregistration and heard the directions given by her husband as to the ownership of the boat. That Haid directed the official to register the boat as being owned by him and his wife, Elizabeth V. Haid, and her stepson. This was done and a card was signed by him to that effect and left at the custom house. She further testified as to the seizure of the boat under the fieri facias, and the release of it by the sheriff upon her giving the required bond under the statute.

On cross-examination, her attention was called to the fact that in her petition she alleged that she was the owner of the property, indicating, as claimed by the appellee, that she was the sole owner of the property, when by her testimony she disclosed she was not its sole owner. In explanation of this apparent discrepancy in the allegation of the petition and in the evidence offered, she testified that she was "an owner, a part owner of the property."

Michael J. Schiavone, deputy collector of customs, who had supervision of the registration of motor or power boats, was shown the registration card, and was asked what it was. He testified that it was a certified copy of the record "to show owners of the boat (Betty V) as stated under date of March 18, 1933, by William J. Haid." This card was then offered and admitted in evidence without objection, for the purpose of showing in whom the title was vested. By this card it was shown that the owners of the boat were William J. Haid, Elizabeth V. Haid, his wife, and Robert E. Haid, a son of William J. Haid by the former wife. He further testified that the registration made upon the directions of William J. Haid was "in compliance with the motor boat numbering Act of 1918 [[46 USCA § 288]."

At the conclusion of claimant's evidence, a prayer was offered by the defendant, Erema G. Haid, which was granted, by which the jury was instructed that the plaintiff had "offered no legally sufficient evidence to entitle her to recover, and the verdict of the jury must be for Erema G. Haid for the property named in the Declaration."

The sole question to be determined in this case on appeal is whether this prayer was properly granted.

The right of a claimant of property to come in and assert and prove his or her right to it, when it is wrongfully seized under an attachment or execution, existed prior to the passage of the Acts of 1876, c. 285, subsequently amended by the Acts of 1888, c. 507, § 3, and the Acts of 1892, c. 507 now sections 47 and 48 of article 9 of the Code of Public General Laws of this state. That act, with its amendments, as said by Judge Stone, speaking for this court in Kean v. Doerner, 62 Md. page 478, "gave the claimant some additional rights which he had not previously been entitled to. It was an Act passed for the...