Jaeger v. Requardt

Goldsborough, J., delivered the opinion of this Court s The appellee, John J. Requardt, applied to the Court of Common Pleas of the city of Baltimore, on the 7th day of February, 1863, for the benefit of the Insolvent Laws, and on the 1st day June of the same year obtained his final discharge. On the 31st day of May, 1865, the appellant filed his petition in the same Court, alleging himself to be a creditor of Requardt, against whom, he held a promissory note over-due and unpaid^ and that Requardt, when he petitioned, returned in his schedule that he had no property, which return was false and fraudulent. The appellant, in behalf of himself and other creditors, in pursuance of the 19th section 'of the 48th Article of the Code, filed with his petition the seven allegations set out at length in the record. The appellee, being summoned, appeared in Court, and by his counsel moved to dismiss the petition and allegations. 1st.

Because “ the said Edward Jaeger was not, at the time of the application of this defendant for the benefit of the insolvent laws, one of his creditors, nor has he been so at any time since.” 2nd. “ Because this defendant never was indebted to said Edward Jaeger.” 3rd. “ Because said allegations are not in proper form to be submitted to a jury.” 4th. “ Because said allegations present questions of law and not questions of fact; and if issue were joined thereon they could not be properly triable by a jury, as they are prayed to be in said petition.” 5th. " And for other reasons.” The Court sustained the motion and dismissed the petition and allegations. The appellant then entered a prayer for an appeal, and the Court, under the 13th section of the 5th Article of the Code, certified and stated the questions decided by it. By the Article and section last referred to, this ²⁴¹ Court is restricted to the consideration of the rulings of the Court below as certified.

Nevi owing these rulings, wo flunk the Court below properly decided that the petition and allegations were filed within two years, the time prescribed by the 19th section of the 48th Article of the Code. Though the Court did not decide the second question raised by the appellee, that the appellant failed to show himself a creditor in limine, yet, we think it was the right of the