Stockham v. Knollenberg

³³⁸ Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On the 17th of May, 1912, the appellee obtained a decree of Circuit Court Ho. 2 of Baltimore City against the appellant for the sum of $2,500.00 and costs of suit, and on the 10th of September, 1915, a writ of fieri facias was issued on the decree and was returned by the sheriff of Baltimore City,' "Nulla Bona”. On the 29th of September, 1915, the appellee filed a petition in said Court alleging that no part of the decree had been paid; that the petitioner was informed and believed that the’defendant had property or credits that were legally liable to' attachment or execution, but that he was concealing, or had concealed or disposed of the same with the “intent to evade the effect” of said decree; “that, according to the charter records of Baltimore City, on or about March 3rd, 1911, while this suit was pending,” the defendant, Grant Stockham, “as one of the incorporators, formed the corporation of the Grant Stockham Company to engage in a general insurance business as agent and broker, with an authorized capital stock of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) divided into one hundred (100) shares each of the par value of ten dollars ($10.00) ; that the certificate filed among the charter records of Baltimore City, on or about April 7th, 1911, signed by the defendant, its President, and Clara E. Stockham, its secretary, and sworn to by the latter, discloses the fact that said corporation issued 96 shares of its capital stock in the aggregate par value of ninety-six hundred dollars ($9,600.00) in payment of all the right, title, interest and good-will of the said Grant Stockham in and to the general brokerage and fire insurance agency business conducted by him;” that the petitioner believed and therefore averred as a fact that the said transfer’ by the defendant to the corporation formed by him was “made with the intent to evade or prevent” the petitioner from realizing on any decree that he might obtain in the case; that the petitioner further believed and therefore averred that said corporation was in fact a one-man corporation, “owned and ³³⁹ controlled by the defendant/’ and was a shield to prevent the creditors of the defendant from reaching property belonging to him. The prayer of the petition was that Grant Stockham be required to, attend in said Court and be examined “concerning said property and credits/’ and an order of Court was passed accordingly.

A summons was, also issued for the defendant, returnable on tbe day mentioned in the order of Court, and requiring him to bring with him certain books and papers. Tbe record does, not disclose what further was done in pursuance of the petition and order of Court, but counsel for the appellee states in his, brief that the defendant did attend in Court at the time named and was examined by the appellee’s counsel. On the 6th of March, 1918, the appellee filed another petition in said Court, in which, after again stating that he was informed and believed that the appellant “had property or credits, liable to attachment or execution, which he was concealing, or had concealed or disposed of with intent to evade the effect of” said decree, he alleged that the appellant was conducting a “very large and profitable, insurance and brokerage business, under the name of Grant Stockham & Company,” “and that recently” he “obtained an order for insurance from the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the premiums, on which” would amount to approximately fifty-six thousand dollars; that the interest of the appellant in said premiums would he approximately one-fourth of that amount; that the defendant had represented that said business, “'of Grant Stockhom” belonged to bis wife, and that be was only “an employee thereof”; that the appellee was informed that said business did not belong to tbe appellant’s wife, but that tbe appellant was “the real manager, operator and owner” of said business, and that the effort to make it appear that it belonged to his wife was, an attempt to conceal tbe same from his creditors, “and particularly to evade the effect” of the appellee’s decree; that, the money payable to thei appellant as premiums and in which he had a large ³⁴⁰ interest, would be paid over to tbe appellant, and “by him put out of the reach” of the appellee unless the Court aided the appellee by restraining the appellant from, “either receiving said money or paying it over to any one” until a hearing could be had on the petition; that the appellee was practically without a remedy “except through supplementary proceedings,” because he was- “somewhat doubtful of his right to attach the money” due the appellant “on account of the probable inability to attach money in the hands of the Mayor and City Council.” The petition then prayed that the appellant be required to attend in said Court and be examined