Maryland case law › Shannon v. Wright

Shannon v. Wright

60 Md. 520 (1883) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: AffirmedRitchie, J.✓ Good law
HoldingThis is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City appointing a receiver and granting an injunction, with leave to the defendants, after filing answers and upon five days' notice, to move to rescind the order and dissolve the injunction.

Ritchie, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City appointing a receiver and granting an injunction ; with leave to the defendants alter filing answers to the hill and upon giving five days notice to the complainant, to move for the rescinding of the order and the dissolution of the injunction. The answers have been filed; but under the construction repeatedly given to the 2 J st sec. of Art. 5 of the Code of Pub. Gen.

Laws, this Court ls confined on the appeal provided by the statute to the case made by the bill, and does not examine the answer. The averments of the bill, 522 whatever may be the real state of the facts, must be taken as true. Haight & O’Connell vs. Burr, 19 Md., 130 . Our duty, therefore, is simply to determine whether the case stated by the complainant was one which justified the passage of the order appealed from.

Without pausing to dwell upon those averments of the complainant which impute fraudulent misrepresentations to the defendants as to the value of the firm’s assets and its business, by which he was induced to enter into a partnership with them, which has disproportionately engulfed his' means and exposed him to great loss, we find in the specific allegations of clause ten of the bill ample ground for the equitable interposition he has invoked. That clause is as follows: “ And now your orator charges, that debts are due by, and suits are pending against, the firm, and that the defendants having the money of the firm in their possession, refuse to apply it toward the payment of said debts ; that they refuse to give any money to your orator ; that they refuse to permit your orator’s counsel to examine the books- of the firm; that they refuse to allow a competent book-keeper, selected by your orator, to examine the books of the firm ; that in order to anticipate debts owing to the firm, and thus get the firm’s money in their pockets, they have drawn drafts in the name of the firm upon their customers, and procured the same to be discounted by

This is a preview of Shannon v. Wright. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.