Maryland case law › Outerbridge Horsey Co. v. Martin

Outerbridge Horsey Co. v. Martin

142 Md. 52 (1923) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedBriscoe✓ Good law
HoldingOuterbridge Horsey Co., a Maryland distillery corporation, filed a bill in equity in the Circuit Court for Frederick County seeking to impound $4,000 in cash held by the Sheriff of Frederick County (William O.

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case is from: a decree of the Circuit Court for Frederick County, sitting in equity, dated the 25th day of February, 1922, dissolving a preliminary injunction which had been previously granted and dismissing the plaintiff’s bill of complaint. 53 The object and purpose of the proceeding was to invoke and obtain the: aid of a court of equity, by way of injunction, to impound, for the benefit of .the plaintiff, certain money in the hands of the sheriff of Frederick County, and in the hands of a justice of the peace of that county, which is alleged to be the property of the plaintiff. The bill in substance alleges that the plaintiff is ,a. corporation, duly chartered and organized under the laws of the State of Maryland, and that as such it owns a distillery, and bonded and free warehouses, located near Burkittsville, Frederick County, which had 2,400 cases of whiskey therein at the time of the larceny mentioned in the. bill, that the defendr ants, William Martin and Nettie Martin, his wife, feloniously did steal, take, and carry away 1,200 cases of this whiskey, and did unlawfully convert the same or part thereof into cash. The hill further alleges, that the defendants, William and Nettie Martin, were arrested, charged with the larceny of the whiskey, and brought to the jail at Frederick, Maryland, where William Martin is now confined, and that Nettie Mar-fin has been released on bail, and, as security for her further appearance, 'deposited the sum of two thousand dollars in cash with J. Grahame Johnson, a justice of the peace for Frederick County, also one of the defendants in the case; that William Martin, at the time of his apprehension and arrest, had with him the sum of four thousand dollars, which the defendant, William: O. Wertenbaker, sheriff of Frederick Oounty, Maryland, ¡has placed in the custody of the Frederick Town Savings Institution, Frederick, Maryland; that the sum of four thousand dollars, in the hands of the sheriff of Frederick County, and the sum of two thousand dollars, cash bail deposited with J. Grahame J ohnson, justice of the peace, represent the proceeds, from the unlawful sale and wrongful conversion of the whiskey, sk> feloniously stolen and taken by the defendants, William Martin and Nettie Martin, his wife.

The hill then avers that the sums of money mentioned, being in the hands of public officials, cannot he attached or 54 otherwise seized under legal process, and the plaintiff is without adequate remedy, except through the aid of a court of equity, and that the sum of money, arising out of the unlawful sale of the plaintiff’s property, rightfully belongs to the plaintiff .and should be impounded for its benefit, to satisfy its claim; that unless the plaintiff is granted this measure of relief, it will be left entirely without redress in the domestic tribunal against the defendants, although they have assets within the jurisdiction which, in equity and good conscience, should be delivered to the plaintiff. The bill .also avers that William Martin and Nettie Martin, his wife, are insolvent, are not citizens of the State of Maryland, and they have no property or assets; save- and except those herein mentioned, out of which your orator could realize a judgment obtained against them, and they are bootleggers, and notorious characters, who, once they are permitted to have possession of the funds, will abscond with and dissipate the same to the irreparable financial loss and injury of tbe plaintiff. The prayer of the bill, is: (1) That plaintiff’s rights be declared and enforced in the premises. (2) That the sums of money, referred to in the bill of complaint,, be impounded for the benefit of the plaintiff.

(3) That the defendants, and each of .them, their agents, attorneys, representatives and assigns be prohibited from using,

This is a preview of Outerbridge Horsey Co. v. Martin. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.