Ohio Brass Co. v. Clark
Ohio Brass Co. v. Clark
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court.
John Jameson, a resident of the State of Ohio, made an agreement with the Pikesville, Reisterstowm and Emory Grove R. R. Co. to construct an electric railroad in Baltimore County, and some complications and difficulties arising between the parties in regard to the payment of claims against the former incurred in the building of said road, for which the railroad company might be answerable, the two parties on the 30th of October, 1895, agreed in writing that
On the 26th of December, 1895, the Trust Company, as trustee, filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, and with it the agreement we have just referred to, asking that Court to take jurisdiction of the trust fund so held by it, to the end that the said agreement may be construed, and that said fund may be distributed to those entitled thereunder, for an order authorizing the trustee to publish notice to all claimants of such fund to file their claims in that Court, and asking injunctions against the appellees Zouck & Clark to restrain them from further proceedings at law, they having both laid attachments in its hands as garnishee of Jameson. Whereupon jurisdiction was assumed, and on the 16th January, 1895, it was ordered that notice to creditors be given by the trustee. Under the petition thus filed and the order assuming jurisdiction the Trust Company proceeded to administer the trust created by said agreement. Auditor’s Account A was filed, by which a large sum was distributed to creditors of Jameson in the order provided by said agreement. But with this account we are not concerned, as it was ratified and distribution made under it without any objection. Subsequently, however, a further sum came into the hands of the trustee for distribution, and by Account B, filed on the 17th of June, 1896, it was distributed as follows: To the payment in full of the attachment claims of Lester Clark and Morton, Reed & Company, and to the payment in part of the attachment claim of B. F. Shaw & Company.
The Ohio Brass Company, a creditor of Jameson, and the appellant in this case alone objects to the distribution of the fund in question as proposed to be made by Account B. And when it is stated that this appellant never had its attachment laid in the hands of the Trust Company to affect
Order affirmed with costs.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- THE OHIO BRASS COMPANY v. LESTER CLARK
- Cited By
- 7 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Attachments—Rights of Creditors Against Funds of Debtor Held by a Trustee—Priority. Where attachments are laid in the hands of a trustee holding money of the debtor, inchoate liens are thereby created which are entitled to priority according to the dates at which the attachments were laid. It was agreed between J., the contractor for building a railroad and the railroad company that the money payable by the latter to the former should be put into the hands of a Trust Company for the purpose of discharging certain claims on account of the work against the contractor, the balance to be paid to J. The fund was brought into a Court of Equity for distribution and the designated creditors were paid. Certain creditors of J. laid attachments in the hands of the Trust Company. Appellant, a creditor of J., laid no attachment in the hands of the Trust Company, but did lay an attachment in the hands of the railroad company, after the date of the agreement by which the funds were made payable to the Trust Company, but before actual payment of the same. The funds were not sufficient to pay in full the claims of those creditors who issued attachments against the Trust Company. Held, that as against these creditors, the appellant was not entitled to priority.