Frazier v. White

Bowie, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The bill in this case is filed by Anna Maria Frazier and Edward II. Frazier, her husband, of the City of Baltimore, against Alfred White, William J. Frazier, and S. Sands Mills, sheriff, to obtain an injunction to stay the execution of a writ of ji. fa. issued by White on a judgment obtained by him against William J. Frazier, his co-defendant, and levied by Mills, as sheriff, on certain personal property, which the complainant, Anna Maria, claims to own in her own right. The gravamen of the bill is, that the complainant, Anna Maria, being the owner of certain tools and machinery, in her own right, located in certain tenements Nos. 132 and 134 in Thames street, Baltimore, of the value of ten thou ⁶ sand dollars, and being actively engaged in operating said machinery and tools, in the manufacture of machinery .of various kinds and descriptions, the stoppage of which would entail upon her great and irremediable loss, and the destruction of her business, the defendant, Wm.

J. Frazierj leased the houses from Edward J. Frazier in October, 1874, and occupied the same until October, 1876, when he surrendered the same to the said Edward. That after-wards at January Term, 1877, of the Court of Common ■Pleas, the said William J. Frazier, fraudulently caused a suit to be instituted against himself by one Alfred White, and confessed judgment thereon for S1240. That on the same day, a writ of fieri facias was issued on said judgment, and in obedience to its commands, S. Sands Mills, Esq., sheriff of said City, has levied the same upon the machinery and tools in Nos. 132, 134 Thames street, and advertised the same for sale. The complainants charge that the suit instituted by White against William J. Frazier, is a conspiracy entered into between them, whereby the machinery and tools in the premises Nos. 132, 134 Thames street and the property of the complainant, Anna Maria, should he sold at a ruinous sacrifice,-under cover of legal proceedings, the business of - said oratrix utterly ruined, and her property unlawfully taken from her, etc. They allege the complainants have not an adequate and sufficient remedy at law, wherefore they prayed an injunction, and other and further relief.

A provisional injunction was granted with leave to move for its dissolution, upon filing the answers of the defendants. Frazier and White answered separately, arid both deny all the material averments of the bill. Each, specially pleads, that the complainants have a full, adequate and complete remedy at law, for any loss they might sustain by reason of said judgment and proceedings thereunder. ⁷ They deny that the complainant, Anna Maria Frazier, owns said property, or that she is carrying on the business, and charge that she is not entitled to relief in equity. A