Frey v. Shrewsbury Savings Institution

Stone, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. ' In the year 1861, Vm. Meade Addison and R. R. Boarman, trustees, sold a tract of land lying in Baltimore County, to Henry Latimer and Christof Kolter, and conveyed it to them as tenants in common-. On the 7th of September, in the year 1878, Henry Latimer being then very much embarrassed, executed (his wife joining therein) a deed of trust of all his property to. Alexander J. Frey, the appellant, for the benefit of all his creditors, with full power to sell the same, and distribute the proceeds among his creditors, according to their several equities.

The interest of Latimer in the property conveyed to him, as tenant in common with Christof Kolter, passed under this deed to Frey, the trustee, and who, in the execution of his trust, duly sold the same, and reported the sale to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, as required by law. The interest of Christof Kolter was sold at the same time, but by a different trustee, and both trustees having duly made their reports, the sales were finally ratified by ¹⁵³ that Court, on the 18th of June, 1880, and the case was referred to the auditor, to distribute the proceeds of the sale of the whole tract. After the case was referred to the auditor, the Shrews-bury Savings Institution filed a petition in the case, alleging that before the purchase of the land by Latimer and Kolter, they liad formed a copartnership, under the name of Kolter and Latimer, for the purpose of buying, working, and selling lands, and that although the land bought by them from Addison and Boarman, trustees, was conveyed to them as tenants in common, it was bought with the partnership funds, and was, in fact, the property of the firm of Kolter & Latimer, and was primarily liable for the debts of the firm. The said Savings Institution further alleged, that the firm of Kolter & Latimer was largely indebted to it, and elaime*d the payment of its debt out of the proceeds of sale.

Erey, the trustee of Latimer, answered this petition, denying that the land was partnership property, or bought with partnership funds, but claiming that the portion of the land sold by him, was the individual property of Latimer. A great deal of proof was taken before the auditor, who made a report, distributing the proceeds of