Beilman v. Poe

Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the court. This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City overruling exceptions to an audit, which exceptions were based on the refusal of the auditor to allow interest claimed by appellant to be a part of a judgment recovered by him, against the United 'Surety Company of Baltimore in the Supreme Court of New York, in and for the County of Kings, and which judgment, duly authenticated., was filed against the assets of said, company in the hands of appellees, receivers by appointment- of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City. It is admitted that the company is insolvent. On November 13th, 1911, the New York Court entered a, judgment for $11,167.09 against the United Surety Company in favor of Peter Beilman and others.

On May 2nd, 1912, Beilman, the appellant, filed in 1he receivership proceedings his duly executed, sworn claim against said company for the amount, of said judgment “with interest thereon until date of payment,” etc. Attached to said claim was a, duly certified transcript of the judgment, and original assignments, whereby the interests of the other plaintiffs, in said cause of action and. judgment were duly assigned and transferred, to Peter Beilman. On February 1st, 1913, appellant filed a supplemental sworn claim for $814.15, being for interest on said judgment from November 13th, 1911, until February 1st, 1913, the date of filing said supplemental claim, in which he claimed interest accrued ⁴⁸⁴ “in accordance with the terms and provisions of Section 1211 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 370 of the General Business Law of the State of New York; and further that he is entitled under and by virtue of the same statutes, and otherwise, to interest at the same rate yet to accrue upon said judgment from said 1st day of February, 1913, until the date of the payment of his said judgment,” etc. In the meantime, the receivers, by leave granted by the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, over the objection of appellant, entered an appeal from the judgment of November 13th, 1911, to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, which court, by order dated April 9th, 1915, affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court. Thereupon the: receivers entered an appeal from the judgment of said Appellate Division to the Court of Appeals of the State of New. York, which, on November 21st, 1917, entered an order affirming the judgpient of said Appellate Division, and directing entry of judgment for the plaintiffs, with costs.

IJpon receipt of the mandate from the Court of Appeals of New York, the Supreme Court entered, in accordance with what is said to be New York practice, two orders, as follows, viz: Order of December 17, 1917: After reciting the appeal to the Court of Appeals from the appellate division, and the order of the Court of Appeals “that the judgment so appealed from be affirmed, and judgment entered for the plaintiffs with costs,” proceeds.: “Now, on motion of Chase, Cahoone and Regan, attorneys for the plaintiffs, there being no appearance in opposition, it is ordered that the said judgment of the Court of Appeals be and the same is hereby made the judgment of this court; and that the judgment entered on the 13th day of November, 1911, for the sum of $11,167.09, which, with the interest thereon, amounted on November 21st, 1917, the date of the said affirmance by the Court of Appeals, to the sum ⁴⁸⁵ of $15,202.09, be and the same is hereby affirmed, and the judgment of this court he entered herein affirming said judgment, with costs of said appeal against the defendant to he taxed.” Order of December 18th, 1917: After the same recitals as in the previous order, and the further recital of the passing of said order, proceeds: “Now, on motion of Chase, Cahoon and Regan, attortorneys for the plaintiffs, it is adjudged that the judgment in this action entered on the 13th day of November, 1911, for the sum of <$11,167.09, which, with the interest thereon, amounted on November 21, 1917, the date of said affirmance by the Court of Appeals, to the sum of $15,202.09, be and the same is hereby affirmed. And it is further adjudged that the plaintiffs recover of this defendant the sum of $154.99, the amount of their costs herein as taxed, and that they have execution against said defendant therefor.” On April 16, 1918, appellant filed in the receivership proceedings his duly executed and sworn “amended and consolidated claim” for $15,202.09, based upon the aforegoing