Gold v. Wolf

⁵⁷³ Shehan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Conrad Wolf, Sr., and wife, filed a bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City praying that Louis Gold, the appellant, be enjoined from foreclosing two alleged mortgages from Conrad Wolf and wife, on the grounds that both of said mortgages had been procured by fraud, and that there had been a settlement and discharge of the debts, for which the alleged mortgages had been given, by an accord and satisfaction between the parties in interest, and for the same reasons it was prayed that the appellant be required to release these mortgages of record. These questions will be considered in their reverse order, for it is obvious that had the parties in interest entered into an accord and satisfaction of the debts recited in the mortgages, but the mortgagee, nevertheless, had declined to release them and threatened foreclosure proceedings, then it is unnecessary to consider the question of how the mortgages were procured. The appellant, Louis Gold, was engaged in selling used automobiles.

Conrad Wolf, Jr., wished to buy an automobile, and he and Gold entered into negotiations which resulted in the purchase of a 1925 Maxwell car to be paid for in weekly installments of five dollars. This occurred in June, 1927, and the appellees, the father and mother of Conrad Wolf, Jr., are alleged to have executed a mortgage for $315 on certain real estate belonging to them, as guarantors of the payment of this debt of their son. It is charged that the execution of this mortgage was fraudulently obtained, in that Gold represented it to be a promissory note and thus procured the mortgagors’ signatures. This automobile in a very short time proved to be entirely unsatisfactory, and the parties to the original agreement again entered into negotiations for another car, which resulted in the purchase by Conrad Wolf, Jr., of a “Flint” automobile for $575.

Involved in this transaction was the trade of the Maxwell and other adjustments, and an undertaking to pay $250. Gold claims that the payment of this sum was secured by the ⁵⁷⁴ elder Wolf and wife by their giving another mortgage to him. It is alleged that this mortgage was also procured by fraud practiced upon these elderly people by Gold in the same manner as that relating to the first mortgages. These alleged frauds are denied by the appellant both in his answer and in his testimony, and no extended consideration of the facts relating thereto is called for, because, in this case, for the reasons above stated, it seems unnecessary to the decision.

However, we believe that the facts presented in the record do not sustain the charges of fraud and on that ground these mortgages should not be declared void. The alleged settlement and discharge of the debts secured by these two mortgages by an accord and satisfaction, between the parties in interest, presents the important and controlling question for our consideration. The facts offered to support this contention, in addition to those above recited, are that the purchaser, Conrad Wolf, Jr., was unable to continue to pay the installments on his indebtedness and offered to return the Flint automobile to the appellant, who accepted it, together with the retention of the fifty-five dollars already paid, in full satisfaction and discharge of the indebtedness and obligations of the appellees and their son. Assurances were given at the time of the return of the “Flint” car, and subsequent thereto, that they, the Wolfs, were fully dicharged from all liability in connection with the purchase of these automobiles.

The above facts are sufficient to. support the accord and satisfaction. Brown v. Stewart, 56 Md. 421, 430 ; Howard v. Hobbs, 125 Md. 636 , 94 A. 318 ; 1 Amer.Jur. 244; Chicora Fertilizer Co. v. Duncan, 91 Md. 144 , 46 A. 347 . This accord and satisfaction is said to have been in 1928, and since the appellant directly denies that any such transaction occurred, an examination of the facts and circumstances that lend support to the contentions of the appellees should be carefully made. Before the time of the return of the Flint automobile it had been completely overhauled, repainted, and put in ⁵⁷⁵ good condition.

Apparently this was one of the inducements that influenced Gold in accepting the return of the car under the conditions above recited. Gold resold the Flint car twice, without notifying the Wolfs to whom it was sold, first to Charles Wolf, brother of Conrad, and later to John Weinhold. The transaction with Charles Wolf was entirely between Gold and him. The agreement was that Charles would take his brother’s place and thus acquire the Flint automobile and pay for it as his brother had undertaken to do.

He did so receive it and did make several small payments on it, and used it for a considerable length of time. The automobile was kept on the premises where Charles lived at 206 S. Kresson Street, in Highlandtown, from which place, after Charles had defaulted in