Mattingly v. Mattingly

Adkins, J., delivered tbe opinion of tbe Court. This is the second appeal in this case.’ The first was from a decree awarding, to Francis E. Mattingly, tbe appellee here and also- in the former appeal, a fund of $1,136.09 in tbe bands, of tbe Clerk of the Circuit Court for Howard County under a consent decree passed June 3rd, 1921, by which it was ordered that said sum “less, costs of tbe case, shall be retained by tbe Clerk of this Court for a final determination of this cause as to tbe respective rights of J. Benjamin Mat-tingly and Flancis E. Mattingly to tbe said sum.” Subsequently, after bearing, the decree awarding this sum to appellee was passed, and, on appeal, was reversed, tbe report of tbe case appearing in 143 Md. 227 . In that case, it appeared that certain property near Laurel, in Howard County, belonging to J. Benjamin Mattingly, was sold under a mortgage and purchased by tbe assignees of the mortgage, and an option to purchase tbe property at tbe price paid by tbe assignees, together with certain interest charges, taxes, counsel fees and other expenses, was. taken in the name of tbe said Francis E. Mattingly; and the question was whether be, in taking said option and in giving an option to tbe Brightwood Sanitarium Company, which subsequently purchased tbe property, was acting for himself or on behalf of bis brother, Benjamin, and for bis benefit. It was 'held that he was acting for Benjamin, and that consequently tbe profit, if any, accruing from the purchase and ⁵²³ sale of the property, belonged to William E. Mattingly, the appellant, as assignee of his brother, Benjamin, “subject to any money paid ox advanced by Francis.

E. Mattingly, for authorized or needed expenses and advancements growing out of and immediately connected with the transaction, but not subject to compensation for services rendered by him, or for money owing to him by his brother, not growing out of and immediately connected with the transaction”; and the case was remanded in order that testimony might be taken, if desired, to establish such expenses and advancements. Testimony was accordingly taken and the learned trial court decreed: “that the following sums, amounting' in the aggregate to eight hundred and ninety-one dollars and eighty-two cents ($891.82) are due the said Francis E. Mat-tingly Tor authorized or needed expenses and advancements growing out of and immediately connected with the transaction,’ namely: “(1) The sum of four hundred and seventy-four dollars and twenty-six cents ($474.26), with interest from December 2nd, 1920, and seven dollars and forty cents ($7.40) costs, due the said Francis E. Mattingly on a judgment entered against J. Benjamin Mattingly and Richard O. Webster in the Circuit Court for Charles County, on December 2nd, 1920, and duly offered in evidence in this case, and which judgment was entered on notes given by the said J. Benjamin Mattingly (with, the said Richard C. Webster as an accommodation joint maker), for moneys paid and advanced by the said Francis E. Mattingly at the special instance and request of the said J. Benjamin Mattingly for interest on the judgment of the Charles County Bank of the Eastern Shore Trust Company, mentioned in the evidence in this case, and which last mentioned judgment was a lien on the property involved in said transaction. “(2) The sum of two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) for account of the counsel fees