George Long Contracting Co. v. Albert

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, overruling a demurrer to a bill of complaint, filed by the appellee against the appellant, and others, and granting an injunction against the defendants until the further order of the Court. It appears from the record that the appellee on the 22nd day of June, 1909, obtained a judgment for the sum of $1,048.44:, in the Superior Court of Baltimore City, against a certain Elizabeth Beaverton, now Elizabeth Gerock, and under a writ of fieri facias dated August 22nd, 1910, directed to the sheriff of Baltimore county, nine lots of ground, with improvements, owned by the defendant, the judgment debtor, and situate on the east side of Sixth street, in Highlandtown, Baltimore county, were levied upon to satisfy the debt and cost of the judgment. On the 18th day of October, 1910, six of these lots were sold, at sheriff’s sale, and purchased by the appellee, and subsequently on the 9th day of November, 1910, they were by a sheriff’s deed duly conveyed to him.

It further appears that on the 16th day of August, 1910, the appellant, the George Long Contracting Company, filed for record with the clerk of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, a mechanics’ lien claim for the sum of $228.15, for material furnished in the erection of the houses, on these ¹¹³ lots, and' on the 22nd of Nov., 1910, the Circuit Court of Baltimore County, under proceedings to enforce the payment of this and certain other mechanics’ liens (Johns Hopkins Hospital v. Gerock), decreed that the property here in dispute should be sold, and appointed trustees to make such sale. The grounds of relief set up here in the bill consist of alleged errors in the mechanics’ lien proceedings, such as want of proper parties, defects and insufficiency in the alleged lien claim of the appellant, and the failure of the decree to bind the property purchased by the appellee, and other alleged errors apparent upon the face of the proceedings. The prayer of the bill is, first, that the decree passed in the mechanics’ lien proceedings be reformed and amended by eliminating therefrom and striking out of the decree all direction and authority to sell and offer for sale, the six lots of ground and improvements, purchased at sheriff’s sale by the appellee; second, that the defendants, including the trustees named in the decree, be enjoined and restrained from selling or otherwise disposing of the lots purchased by the appellee, and third, a prayer for general relief in equity. We think the learned judge below committed an error1 in overruling the demurrer, and in granting an injunction restraining the sale by the trustees, under the facts alleged in the bill, in this case.

Conceding there was sufficient ground for re-opening and modifying the decree in the mechanics’ lien proceedings (the Johns Hopkins Hospital v. Elizabeth Gerock), sought to be reformed, the alleged errors and defects were such as to be revised and corrected by a petition for a rehearing and not by original bill. The decree attacked here was passed on the 22nd day of November, 1910, and the bill of complaint was filed on the 3rd day of December, 1910. The decree at that date had not been enrolled, and was subject to the control of the Court, until enrolment. It is provided ¹¹⁴ by section 177, Article 16, of the Code, that all final decrees and orders in the nature of final decrees shall he considered as enrolled-from and