Weber v. Weber
| Decision Date | 04 December 1935 |
| Docket Number | 34. |
| Citation | 181 A. 670,169 Md. 702 |
| Parties | WEBER v. WEBER. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas; Eli Frank, Judge.
Suit at law by George L. Weber against Mabel Weber, administratrix of the estate of J. Harry Weber. From a judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before BOND, C.J., and URNER, OFFUTT, PARKE, SLOAN, MITCHELL SHEHAN and JOHNSON, JJ.
August W. Schnepfe, of Baltimore, for appellant.
Frederick H. Hennighausen, of Baltimore (Hennighausen & Stein, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
In a suit at law for a share of a fund paid as proceeds of a sale of property which J. Harry Weber and George L. Weber owned in common with others, the court directed a verdict for the defendant on the grounds that a decree in a previous suit in equity, on a bill of interpleader, had adjudicated and foreclosed the controversy, and, generally, that the evidence taken was not legally sufficient to support a recovery by the plaintiff. This action is questioned on appeal.
Trustees who made the sale for the owners of the property paid $3,557 due to George L. Weber, and $3,207 due to J. Harry Weber, to Henry M. Nitzel, attorney for both of them. Nitzel deposited all this money in his own bank account, and, after some partial payments, as he says, to J. Harry Weber, delayed further payments to his clients for some years until 1927 when a legacy of $10,000 in remainder enabled him to make provision for future payment on account of these, and other debts. This he did by assigning $4,000 from the legacy to the Girard Trust Company of Philadelphia, to be paid eventually to the two clients. The other creditors were designated to receive separate, specified amounts, but the $4,000 he directed to be paid the two Webers jointly, leaving it, as he testified to be divided "as their interest might appear," because he was uncertain of the amount of the debt still unpaid to J. Harry Weber, being under the impression that it was a few hundred dollars, three or four hundred dollars. The whole sum of $4,000 was less than enough to pay the one debt of George L. Weber with interest accrued and the meaning of a distribution to them as their interest might appear is, presumably, a proportionate payment to each. Subsequently, when the legacy in remainder became payable, the amount designated for the Webers was, by agreement, transferred to a Baltimore trustee for distribution. Then George L. Weber brought forward a contention that amounts which had been previously paid to J. Harry Weber by Nitzel had fully paid, and overpaid, J. Harry Weber's claim, and that therefore the whole of the sum in trust for them jointly was distributable to George L. Weber alone, on account of his entirely unpaid debt. This contention was submitted by the trustee to the circuit court of Baltimore City by a bill of interpleader, upon which the parties to this...
To continue reading
Request your trial