Stockham v. Knollenberg
| Decision Date | 05 December 1918 |
| Docket Number | 16. |
| Parties | STOCKHAM v. KNOLLENBERG. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City; James M. Ambler Judge.
Action by Herman Knollenberg against Grant Stockham. Judgment for plaintiff, and upon return of the writ of fi. fa. nulla bona plaintiff began supplementary proceedings in aid of judgment. From the overruling of defendant's motion to vacate and set aside an order requiring defendant to attend court and be examined concerning his property and credits, defendant appeals. Appeal dismissed.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, THOMAS, PATTISON, URNER STOCKBRIDGE, and CONSTABLE, JJ.
Richard S. Culbreth, of Baltimore, for appellant.
George Ross Veazey, of Baltimore (S. Ralph) Warnken and Haman, Cook Chestnut & Markell, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
On the 17th of May, 1912, the appellee obtained a decree of circuit court No. 2 of Baltimore City against the appellant for the sum of $2,500 and costs of suit, and on the 10th of September, 1915, a writ of fieri facias was issued on the decree and was returned by the sheriff of Baltimore City, "nulla bona." On the 29th of September, 1915, the appellee filed a petition in said court alleging that no part of the decree had been paid; that the petitioner was informed and believed that the defendant had property or credits that were legally liable to attachment or execution, but that he was concealing, or had concealed or disposed of, the same with the "intent to evade the effect" of said decree; "that, according to the charter records of Baltimore City, on or about March 3, 1911, while this suit was pending," the defendant, Grant Stockham, "as one of the incorporators, formed the corporation of the Grant Stockham Company to engage in a general insurance business as agent and broker, with an authorized capital stock of $1,000, divided into 100 shares, each of the par value of $10; that the certificate filed among the charter records of Baltimore City, on or about April 7, 1911, signed by the defendant, its president, and Clara E. Stockham, its secretary, and sworn to by the latter, discloses the fact that said corporation issued 96 shares of its capital stock, in the aggregate par value of $9,600, in payment of all the right, title, interest, and good will of the said Grant Stockham in and to the general brokerage and fire insurance agency business conducted by him"; that the petitioner believed, and therefore averred as a fact, that the said transfer by the defendant to the corporation formed by him was "made with the intent to evade or prevent" the petitioner from realizing on any decree that he might obtain in the case; that the petitioner further believed, and therefore averred, that said corporation was in fact a one-man corporation "owned and controlled by the defendant," and was a shield to prevent the creditors of the defendant from reaching property belonging to him. The prayer of the petition was that Grant Stockham be required to attend in said court and be examined "concerning said property and credits," and an order of court was passed accordingly. A summons was also issued for the defendant, returnable on the day mentioned in the order of court, and requiring him to bring with him certain books and papers. The record does not disclose what further was done in pursuance of the petition and order of court, but counsel for the appellee states in his brief that the defendant did attend in court at the time named and was examined by the appellee's counsel.
On the 6th of March, 1918, the appellee filed another petition in said court, in which, after again stating that he was informed and believed that the appellant "had property or credits liable to attachment or execution, which he was concealing, or had concealed or disposed of, with intent to evade the effect of" said decree, he alleged that the appellant was conducting a "very large and profitable insurance and brokerage business under the name of Grant Stockham & Co.," "and that recently" he "obtained an order for insurance from the mayor and city council of Baltimore, the premiums on which" would amount to approximately $56,000; that the interest of the appellant in said premiums would be approximately one-fourth of that amount; that the defendant had represented that said business "of Grant Stockham" belonged to his wife and that he was only "an employé thereof"; that the appellee was informed that said business did not belong to the appellant's wife, but that the appellant was "the real manager, operator, and owner" of said business, and that the effort to make it appear that it belonged to his wife was an attempt to conceal the same from his creditors, "and particularly to evade the effect" of the appellee's decree; that the money payable to the appellant as premiums, and in which he had a...
To continue reading
Request your trial