Citation Numbers: 130 A. 830, 148 Md. 695
Judges: URNER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
Filed Date: 6/30/1925
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
In the case of Shirk v. Soper et al., Trustees,
After the case had been remanded, an audit was filed accounting for and distributing the proceeds of the ratified sale which the appeal had disputed. Exceptions to the audit were filed by Henry Shirk and James W. Bowers, as attorneys and solicitors, because of the disallowance of their claim of compensation for professional services in Mr. Shirk's individual interest in the course of the proceedings. Mr. Shirk also, by virtue of his personal interest in the trust estate, excepted to the audit on the theory that no title had passed to the purchaser, and, therefore, no part of the purchase money should be included in the audit for distribution. The exceptions were overruled, and from an order ratifying the audit and directing the trustees, on their petition for instructions, to institute no proceedings against the purchaser, an appeal was taken by the exceptants.
By a motion to dismiss the appeal it is shown, without denial, that after the ratification of the audit, Mr. Shirk wrote a letter to the trustees, requesting the distribution of the money "as audited," and that the trustees accordingly disbursed the funds.
As counsel for one of the parties, Messrs. Bowers and Shirk have no such interest in the case as entitles them to appeal from the order overruling their exceptions to the auditor's disallowance of the fee which they claimed. This is definitely settled by the decisions in Culbreth v. Kries,
Any right which Mr. Shirk may have had, in his individual capacity as a party, to appeal from the order ratifying the audit, has been waived by his request, with which the trustees complied, that the funds be distributed as the audit prescribed. Upon the plainest principles of estoppel, he is prevented from successfully disputing a disposition of funds thus made with his consent. The question sought to be presented by his appeal from the order directing the trustees *Page 698
not to proceed against the corporation from which they received the audited purchase money is concluded by the decision on the appeal from the order by which the sale was confirmed. It is argued that the question is subject to the principle of a ruling in the later case of Herman v. Mondawmin Building Loan Assn,
Appeal dismissed.
*Page 1
Herman v. Bldg. Loan Co. , 145 Md. 480 ( 1924 )
Karr v. Shirk , 142 Md. 118 ( 1923 )
Shirk v. Soper , 144 Md. 269 ( 1923 )
Marshall v. Dobler Mudge , 97 Md. 555 ( 1903 )
Franzen v. Dubinok , 290 Md. 65 ( 1981 )
Rocks v. Brosius , 241 Md. 612 ( 1966 )
Dietz v. Dietz , 351 Md. 683 ( 1998 )
Acting Director, Department of Forests & Parks v. Walker , 271 Md. 711 ( 1974 )
Bowles v. Moller, Inc. , 163 Md. 670 ( 1933 )
Hopper v. Harlan , 172 Md. 152 ( 1937 )
Dietz v. Dietz , 117 Md. App. 724 ( 1997 )
Chimes v. Michael , 131 Md. App. 271 ( 2000 )
Franzen v. Dubinok , 45 Md. App. 728 ( 1980 )