Lanahan v. Latrobe

Where a party does not appeal from a decree, this court cannot reverse it for his benefit upon an appeal by other parties. A creditor who participates in proceedings in equity, for the distribution of the proceeds of property sold under a deed of trust, so far makes himself a party to the deed, as to waive his right afterwards to deny its validity. A judgment creditor cannot insist upon the efficacy of his liens at law in opposition to a deed as fraudulent, and at the same time claim in equity to participate in the proceeds of sale under the deed; he will be required to elect how he will proceed.

Appeal from the equity side of the Superior Court for Baltimore City. -The record in this case shows, that on the 7th of September 1851, William Lefferman executed a deed to Jacob Pas-quay and others, of all his property and effects including a stock in trade of hides and leather in the vats, in trust to permit the grantor with all reasonable expedition to complete the process of tanning all said hides and leather, and prepare the same for market, and sell the same and pay the proceeds over to the trustees, who were then to apply them, 1st, to pay the expense of executing and recording this deed; 2nd, to the payment of certain scheduled creditors of the grantor in full if the proceeds be sufficient, but if not then to pay the same ratably among all said creditors; and 3rd, to pay the surplus after full satisfaction of all said claims to the grantor or his assigns. On the 11th of February 185,2, Lefferman executed a second deed of all his property to Latrobe, the appellee, in trust for the benefit of all his creditors, pro rata, without condition or reservations, but containing a stipulation, that “the trustee shall not be liable in the acceptance of this trust, except for such sums of money as shall actually come into his hands, or for the consequences of his intentional misconduct.” On the 13th of the same month and year, Latrobe filed a bill in equity, alleging that after this deed had been deposited for record, Lanahan, one of the appellants, caused executions on judgments rendered by a justice of the peace against Lefferman, on the said 11th inst., to be levied on said Lefferman’s property, then duly vested in complainant by said deed ; that said executions are, or were at the time, in the hands of Jeffers, an officer who had seized the property after the deed was deposited for record as aforesaid, and who now threatens to sell the same. The bill then prays for an injunction, to restrain Lanahan and Jeffers from further proceedings upon these executions and judgments, which was granted. The answer of Lanahan admits the execution of the deed to Latrobe, but denies that any title passed thereby, because Lefferman, by the deed first above mentioned, had previously conveyed all his property to the trustees therein named, which he avers is valid as between Lefferman and said grantees, (though invalid as to creditors,) and therefore good against Latrobe, the grantee of said Lefferman. He admits that executions were issued and levied as stated in the bill, but avers that he has a right to proceed to sell the property. The answer of Jeffers admits that executions were placed in his hands, which he levied on Lefferman’s property, but says that he had no knowledge of the other matters charged in the bill. The defects of the record are slated in the opinion of this court. The court below on motion to dissolve, (Frick, J.,) decided that the first deed to Pasquay was void, and that the deed to. Latrobe was valid, and decreed that the injunction should be continued, and an account stated by the auditor. From this decree the defendants appealed.