Yost v. Eugene I. Rosenfeld & Co.

Pattison, L, delivered the opinion of the Court. The plaintiff filed the bill in this case for the purpose of vacating and annulling a deed executed by the defendant, Gladys D. Yost, to one Eleanor M. Yost. The deed is dated April 5th, 1915, and was duly recorded among the Land Records of Baltimore City. By it certain property on Bonner road and Garrison avenue, in the City of Baltimore, is conveyed to the grantee by the grantor, named in the deed.

At the time of the conveyance of this property and sometime prior thereto, it is alleged, that the defendant, Gladys D. Yost, the owner of the property, was indebted to the plaintiff, in the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars and seventy cents, for work done, and material sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. The bill avers, that the property described in the deed, is the only property of the defendant, from which the plaintiff’s claim can be made and secured; that the conveyance was made for the sole purpose of delaying and defrauding the plaintiff, in the recovery of the debt, and the grantee, Eleanor, was aware the claim was due by the grantor to the plaintiff; that the property conveyed, is the only property out of which the recovery can be had, and that the defendant, Eleanor, became the grantee under the deed for the sole and only purpose of aiding the defendant, Gladys, in hindering, delaying and defrauding the plaintiff in the collection of the debt. ¹¹ The charges of fraud and the indebtedness from the appellant to the appellee alleged and contained in the bill, are denied in the answer of the appellant, one of the defendants in the Court below. The other defendant, the grantee, did not answer the bill and made no defense to the suit. The case was heard upon the bill, answer and the testimony appearing in the record, and from the decree sustaining the plaintiff’s claim and vacating the deed, and from a supplemental decree directing the property to be sold, the defendant, Gladys D. Yost, has taken this appeal.

The primary question in the case, is whether the testimony contained in the record establishes a claim or indebtedness from the appellant to the appellee, as a basis for the maintenance of the suit. If there was no debt, tbe matter of the conveyance and the disposal of the property is a question of no concern to the plaintiff, as it is not claimed, that other creditors are affected thereby. The controversy, upon this branch of the case, relates, first, to a charge of $106.44 for wiring a residence, on Bonner road, alleged to be the fourth house from Garrison avenue, and second, that the debt or account, between tbe parties was paid and settled, on the 12th of January, 1915, by tbe acceptance of a check for one hundred dollars, which, bv agreement, operated as a payment in full and a satisfaction of the entire claim. While there is some conflict in the proof, we are of opinion, after a careful examination of the testimony, in the light of the dealings between the parties and the other facts and circumstances, hearing upon the subject, that the appellant, has failed to sustain either of the contentions relied upon, to defeat the plaintiff’s claim.

It- is admitted, that the items in the account-, other than the charges for work done, for electrical installation, is correct, and that Mrs. YTellie B. Yost, the mother of the defendant, was the agent of the owner of the property and was authorized to make the repairs on the property. ¹² The proof shows, that there was due the plaintiff on or about the 7th of January, 1915, on account stated, the sum of $251.93, as will appear from the record. This account was placed in the hands of an attorney for collection, who wrote several letters to Mrs. Yost, before and after the payment by her on January 12th, 1915, of the sum of one hundred dollars. The witness, Erlanger, the secretary and treasurer, of the plaintiff company, testified, that the account was correct both as to the work and the materials furnished and that Mrs. Yost admitted in an interview the correctness of the account and offered to settle the account by a note, that she never disputed it, but only claimed she had no funds at the time to1 pay it. The witness F'ehsenfeld testified, that the $100.00 paid by check on the 12th of January, 1915, was credited on the account, and this left a balance due the plaintiff of about $150.70 on the account.

Mr. Rosenfeld, the president of the company, testified that Mrs. Yost admitted to him on the 12th of January, 1915, that the items in the account were proper charges, and paid $100.00 by check, and promised to settle the balance due thereon. There was no agreement that the check should be a settlement in full of the account, and that he was absolutely positive that the entry upon the check, “in full of all demands for material and work on Garrison avenue for Mrs. N. B. Yost and Gladys D. Yost,” was not there when the check was presented to him. He further testified that Mrs. Yost visited his home, on or about the- 5th of March, 1917, and offered to settle the balance of the account ($150.00) by the payment of the sum of $7fi. The witnesses Smith and Knight, employees of the plaintiff, testified that the work upon the house,