Clayton v. Smith

102 A. 925, 131 Md. 562, 1917 Md. LEXIS 61
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedDecember 13, 1917
StatusPublished

This text of 102 A. 925 (Clayton v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clayton v. Smith, 102 A. 925, 131 Md. 562, 1917 Md. LEXIS 61 (Md. 1917).

Opinion

Burke, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We are called upon on this appeal to determine the propriety of an order of the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City, passed on the 14th day of May, 1917, overruling a demurrer of the appellee, one of the defendants, to the amended bill. The grounds upon which the bill was alleged to be bad, as stated by the demurrer, are: first, that the complainant, has not stated such a cause of action as entitles him to relief, as prayed, in a Court of Equity; secondly, that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the aforesaid action. The original bill to which a brief reference will presently be made was filed on January 16, 1917. The amended bill was filed by leave of Court on Beberuary 9, 1917.

The admitted facts stated as briefly as may be (for the bill is quite lengthy, containing 16 paragraphs, and sets forth fully all the facts in respect to the transaction which gave rise to this suit) are as follows: The plaintiffs are Winston T. Smith and his mother, Mrs. Ellen Smith,—she having been made a party plaintiff to the cause by an order of the Court passed on the 22nd day of March, 1917. She adopted the averments and allegations and prayers of the original bill and amended bill and agreed to, be bound by the orders and proceedings theretofore entered. • The defendants are Arthur Gr. Clayton, the appellant, and the Citizens National Bank of Baltimore, Maryland, which has its principal office and place of business in the City of Baltimore. Winston T. Smith, Ellen Smith and Arthur G-. Clayton are residents of Marion *564 County, in the State of West Virginia. Prior to the 9th day of September, 1916,.Winston T. Smith had acquired information which induced him to believe that the stock of the Ohh> Oil Company was a good investment. He disclosed this information to- Clayton and suggested to Clayton that financial arrangements be made, to purchase certain shar*es of this stock. Thereupon an agreement was entered into between Smith and Clayton to this effect, viz: Smith was to obtain confirmation of the information he had previously acquired and which he had disclosed to Clayton with respect to said stock, and, if such inquiry should confirm his previous information as to its being a good investment, he should inform Clayton of that fact, and that thereupon Clayton would purchase certain shares of said stock, of which he agreed to carry thirty shares thereof for the account of Smith, and such additional shares as he might purchase for his own account. In pursuance of this agreement Smith did institute inquiry with a view to obtain confirmation of his previously acquired information as to the stock and this inquiry resulted in the confirmation of the information which he had communicated to Clayton that the stock of the Ohio Oil Company was a. desirable investment. On or about the 9th day of September, 1916, he communicated this fact to Clayton. Thereupon and in pursuance of the agreement stated Clayton purchased eighty shares of the stock of the Ohio Oil Company of which he had agreed, as above stated, to- carry thirty shares for the account of Smith. On the 11th day of September, 1916, Clayton informed Smith of this purchase and on that day Smith and Clayton executed the following; memorandum or writing:

“A. G-. Clayton has borrowed $7,600 from the Citizens’ National Bank of Baltimore, Md. This was for the purchase of thirty (30) shares of Ohio Oil Company stock for W. T. Smith and Ellen Smith. A. G-. Clayton put up as collateral on note the thirty (30) shares of Ohio Oil Company stock and five (5) shares of Standard Oil of New Jersey stock, this five (5) *565 shares of Yew Jersey being A. G. O.’s individual stock. The thirty shares of Oil Company stock will be transferred in A. G. O.’s name. In order to secure A. G. C. for having done this, W. T. S. agrees to give A. G. O. first mortgage on vacant lot situated on the corner of Locust street and TTurbee avenue, said lot being in the name of his mother, Mrs. Ellen Smith, but as W. T. S. and his mother are both interested in this purchase of Ohio Oil it is for this reason said lot is being given A. G. O. as security.”

This memorandum was filed with the bill and as a part thereof. It will be observed that this memorandum declared that thirty shares of this stock was purchased for W. T. Smith and Ellen Smith, the appellees, and it further shows that Clayton had borrowed from the Citizens National Bank the sum of $7,600—that being tho purchase price of the thirty shares—upon a note, and had deposited with the bank as collateral security for the loan said thirty shares, and also five shares of stock of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey—this latter named stock is stated to be the individual property of Clayton. It is further stated that the thirty shares of the Ohio Oil Company would be transferred in Clayton’s name. The note given to the bank for $7,600, represented the cost price of the thirty shares together with the interest upon the cost thereof from September 9, 1916, to January 9, 1917.

In order to carry the entire purchase—eighty shares— Clayton pledged the same for loans which he obtained at tho Citizens National Bank. The amount or amounts of these loans are unknown to the plaintiffs, but all of these loans are represented by promissory notes, with authority to the bank to hold any collateral deposited as security for any one of said notes for any other indebtedness of the maker to the bank. Subsequent to the 11th day of September, 1916, and prior to January 9, 1917, Clayton obtained from the bank ten shares of the stock of the Ohio Oil Company. On or before Janu *566 ary 9; 1917, Clayton took up all promissory notes executed by him to the bank and substituted in the place thereof one note for $60,800, and pledged as collateral security therefor the remaining seventy shares of oil stock and various and sundry other stocks and collaterals. On the 11th day of September, 1916, the date of the execution of the memorandum quoted above, Clayton informed Smith that the loan he had negotiated at the Citizens National Bank, to wit, $7,600, for carrying the thirty shares of the oil company’s stock for Smith, would mature on January 9, 1917, and shortly after September 11, 1916, and again shortly before January 9, 1917, Smith informed Clayton that he would be ready on January 9, 1917, to pay said sum of $7,600 and requested Clayton to be ready to deliver said thirty shares to him on that date. Smith was able, ready and willing on that date and ever since then to pay Clayton said sum of $7,600, thereby making full performance of his obligations to repay to him the cost price of the oil stock.

On or about January 8, 1917, Smith met Clayton in the City of Washington, and then and there requested Clayton to make arrangements for the delivery to him on January 9, 1917, of the thirty shares of stock and exhibited to Clayton a certified check for $7,600 as evidence of his ability to pay for the stock. Clayton refused to make delivery of the shares of stock on the following day and stated that the loans for which the said shares were pledged had been renewed. On January 16, 1917, Smith tendered to the Citizens National Bank on its behalf as lender and pledgee and on behalf of Clayton the sum of $7,600 in payment of the amount due by him to Clayton for the purchase of said thirty shares.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dixon v. Dixon
90 A. 846 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1914)
Dryden v. Hanway
31 Md. 254 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1869)
McRae v. McRae
27 A. 1038 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
102 A. 925, 131 Md. 562, 1917 Md. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clayton-v-smith-md-1917.