Digital Commons @ UM Law

Editorial Section

Maryland Law Review
Volume 1 | Issue 1 Article 5
Tort Suit by Wife Against Husband's Partnership -
David v. David
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr
Part of the Torts Commons
This Casenotes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please
contact smccarty@law.umaryland.edu.
Recommended Citation
Tort Suit by Wife Against Husband's Partnership - David v. David, 1 Md. L. Rev. 65 (1936)
Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol1/iss1/5
Casenotes and Comments
TORT SUIT BY WIFE AGAINST HUSBAND'S
PARTNERSHIP-DAVID V. DAVID'
Plaintiff-appellant-wife brought an action against de-
fendant-appellee-partnership for personal injuries sus-
tained while upon the defendant's premises for business
purposes. Defendants filed the general issue plea and a
special plea setting up the marriage relation between the
plaintiff and one of the members of the defendant part-
nership. Plaintiff's demurrer to the plea was overruled
and a judgment of non pros was entered. On appeal the
principal question was whether a married woman is en-
titled to maintain an action for negligence against a part-
nership when at the time of the negligent act her husband
was a member of the partnership. Held: Judgment af-
firmed. Since a married woman cannot maintain an action
in tort against her husband, she cannot maintain such an
action against a partnership of which her husband is a
member. The same public policies control in the two cases.
It was well settled at common law that a married woman
could not sue her husband either in contract or in tort
because of the existence of the marital relation.2 Nor could
she sue her husband's partnership because the partner-
ship under the common law theory was considered an ag-
gregate of individuals,' and under the rule of joinder of
parties4 the husband would have to be made a party de-
fendant although it was also necessary for the husband
to join the wife as co-plaintiff.5 Were this allowed, the rule
that a party cannot appear on both sides of the recordO
would be violated.
In 1898 the Maryland legislature passed the Married
Women's Act7 which permits married women to sue either
1161 Md. 532, 157 At. 755, 81 A. L. R. 1100 (1931).
2 Barton v. Barton, 32 Md. 214 (1869).
3 McLane v. State Tax Comm., 156 Md. 133, 143 Atl. 656 (1928).
Smith v. Crichton, 33 Md. 103 (1870).
Sanarzevosky v. City Passenger Ry. Co., 88 Md. 479, 42 Atl. 206 (1898);
Treusch v. Kamke, 63 Md. 278 (1885).
6 Thompson v. Young, 90 Md. 72, 44 At 1037 (1899).
'Md. Code, Art. 45.
CASENOTES AND COMMENTS
in contract or in tort "as fully as if they were unmar-
ried".' The question as to whether under this act a wife
could maintain suit against her husband on a deed of sep-
aration without the intervention of a trustee was expressly
left open in the case of Barclay v. Barclay,' but the court
remarked that "it would seem the question would be pre-
sented in a very different light since the Act of 1898. .... "
It has been suggested"0 that Sec. 20 of Art. 45 may have
grown out of the query in the Barclay case. This section
passed in 1900, provided that "a married woman may con-
tract with her husband... and upon all such contracts...
may sue and be sued as fully as if she were a feme sole."
Under these two statutes it has been definitely decided that
the wife may maintain a suit in contract either in law or
in equity against her husband."
The question as to whether the Act allows a married
woman to sue her husband in a tort action was, squarely
presented in Furstenburg v. Furstenburg.2 In that case
the wife brought suit against the husband for injuries sus-
tained as a result of his negligent operation of the car
in which she was riding with him. In holding that the wife
could not maintain the suit the court declared that the pur-
pose of Section 5 of Article 45 was merely to give the wife
a remedy, by her suit alone, without the necessity of com-
plying with the common law requirement of joinder of the
husband. "The intention to create, as between husband
and wife, personal causes of action, which did not exist
before the Act, is not, in our opinion, expressed by its
terms." This opinion was based on the fact that the leg-
islature passed a separate Act" allowing the wife to sue
the husband in contract; and since no such express Act
in regard to tort suits was passed, the intent of the leg-
islature must have been that no such action should be per-
mitted. This decision places Maryland in line with the ma-
Ibid, Sec. 5.
'98 Md. 366, 375, 56 AtI. 804 (1904).
'0 Md. Code, Art. 45, Sec. 20, annotator's note.
Cochrane v. Cochrane, 139 Md. 530, 115 At. 811 (1921).
152 Md. 247, 136 At. 534 (1927).
"Md. Code, Art. 45, Sec. 20.
MARYLAND LAW REVIEW
jority view on the right of the wife to sue the husband in
tort. There is, however, an ever increasing minority which
offers weighty arguments to sustain the contrary view.14
It seems to be the well settled policy of the Court of
Appeals to refrain wherever possible from becoming con-
cerned with domestic quarrels. Even in divorce suits where,
if ever, the function of the court is to deal with domestic
disputes, it has expressed its reluctance to interfere except
where "either of the parties has been guilty of such con-
duct as would make a continuance of the marital relation
inconsistent with the health, self-respect, and reasonable
comfort of the other,' 5 and has said: "It is not the func-
tion of the Court in such cases as this to arbitrate family
quarrels...."I" The same consideration applied in Schnei-
der v. Schneider 7 where the mother brought an action in
tort against her minor son for injuries sustained in an auto-
mobile accident as a result of his negligence. In refusing
to allow the action the court said: "We need not dwell
upon the importance of maintaining the family relation
free ... from the antagonisms which such suits imply."
This policy was adhered to in the Furstenburg case and
seems to be the underlying reason for the limited construc-
tion of the statute.
The rules forbidding tort suits between husbands and
wives and between parents and minor children"s would
seem to be based on two overlapping public policies, one,
that domestic quarrels should not be aired in the court-
room, and the other, that to permit such suits might tend
to disrupt the marital or family harmony, which is so so-
cially desirable. This last policy ties in with several rules
of evidence which exclude otherwise admissible evidence
in order to foster marital harmony. Thus confidential com-
munications between spouses are privileged in order to
11 On the right of wife to sue husband for personal injuries, see 29 A.L.R.
1482; 33 A. L. R. 1406; 44 A. L. R. 794; 48 A. L. IL 293; 89 A. L. R. 118.
For list of states, see (1935) 21 Corn. L. Q. 157, 159.
15 Cohen v. Cohen, - Md. -, 187 Atl. 104, 105 (1936), quoting from
Singewald v. Singewald, 165 Md. 136, 146, 166 Atl. 441, 446 (1933).
" Ibid.
1T 160 Md. 18, 152 Atl. 498 (1930).
8For tort actions between parent and child, see 81 A. L. R. 1157.
CASENOTES AND COMMENTS
encourage spouses to communicate confidential matters to
each other. Spouses are non-compellable to testify against
spo.uses because to allow this would disrupt the marital
harmony between them. The Lord Mansfield rule forbids
spouses to testify to that non-access which would "bastard-
ize the issue" because of the marital policy against drag-
ging the intimate relations of spouses into the courtroom.
Several years prior to the Schneider case, in Cochrane
v. Cochrane,9 the court had already held that a wife may
maintain a suit against the husband for the protection of
her property either in a court of equity or in a court of
law, and no mention was made of the public policy doctrine.
In the Furstenburg case this decision was disposed of by
the statement: "That the view is not inconsistent with our
conclusion in this case. . . ." The result of the two deci-
sions is obvious: The wife may maintain suit against her
husband for a tort committed against her property but not
for one against her person.
It is difficult to sustain this distinction in legal principle
since in one case the Act was construed to give the wife
a substantive right of action she did not possess at com-
mon law, while in the other it was construed not to give
her a substantive right of action she did not possess at
common law. Also, as a matter of abstract justice, the va-
lidity of the distinction i8 questionable. In both cases her
rights have been invaded: yet in one she has legal re-
dress, in the other she has none. It has been suggested
that she has a remedy in criminal proceedings, divorce,
etc.,20 but actually this is the equivalent to no remedy at
all.21
As a practical matter, when we consider suits by the
wife, there are several arguments that may be advanced
for the validity of the distinction and undoubtedly courts
have had these in mind when making the rules. First, the
wife is entitled to the benefit of her husband's assets by
2 Supra note 1.1.
2 Thompson v. Thompson, 218 U. S. 611, 54 L. Ed. 1180, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep.
111 (1910).
21 McCurdy, Torts Between Persons In Domestic Relations, (1930) 43 Har.
L. R. 1060, 10,52.
MARYLAND LAW REVIEW
virtue of her right to his support during his life. What
real benefit will she gain by securing a judgment against
him? He must pay her doctor's bills in any event and
support her to the extent of his assets for the rest of
their joint lives, unless divorced. But this argument fails
to support the rule when we consider the other side of the
picture, suits by the husband against the wife, which are
also forbidden. There is no such expedient argument to
support the denial of jurisdiction to entertain such tort
suits. This points to the second argument in favor of not
allowing tort suits between members of a family. The
way would be open for fraud upon indemnity insurance
companies. Even in the absence of fraud it would be al-
lowing the husband to profit by his own wrong, since it
is evident the damages recovered by the wife would work
a practical benefit for him, regardless of the rule as to
separate estates of husband and wife. But whether the dis-
tinction is founded upon the public policy doctrine22 an-
nounced by the court, or on the practical grounds not an-
nounced by the courts, but inherent in their rulings, it
seems desirable.
Turning to the principal case we find that the Court
again invokes the doctrine of public policy. Quoting from
State v. Oliver,23 the court says :24 " 'It is better to draw
the curtain, shut out the public gaze and leave the parties
to forget and forgive'. . . . It is apparent from what has
been said that, in our opinion, this case is controlled by
the Furstenberg case .... "
But in the David case, there was present no domestic
quarrel which needed to be "shut out of the public gaze".
The tort was not the wilful and direct action of the hus-
band nor was it incidental to any personal relations. It
was due to the negligence of the partnership and its em-
ployees. The liability arose vicariously. There would
seem to be no reason why marital tranquility and bliss
should be disturbed by allowing such a suit. Further, none
2 For a criticism of the public policy doctrine, see Brown v. Brown, 88
Conn. 142, 89 Atl. 889, 891-892 (1914).
=70 N. C. 60 (1874).
161 Md. 539.
CASENOTES AND COMMENTS
of the elements which lend themselves to the practical rea-
sons noted above are present. The wife has no right to
support from the partnership. The fraud factor is ab-
sent, or at least remote and constant with tort suits gen-
erally. There is some question of the benefit to the hus-
band but this is no reason for denying the wife legal re-
dress under the circumstances. It seems clear that the
substantial reasons of policy supporting the Furstenburg
case are absent in the principal case.
As a matter of strict legal logic, however, the decision
is correct. It is a logical extension of the rule in the Furs-
tenburg case, inasmuch as the court adopted the aggregate
rather than the entity theory of partnership. This re-
fusal to view the partnership as an entity was based on the
fact that the "difference between a partnership and a legal
entity complete in itself ... is that each partner is severally
liable for the wrongful acts and omissions of the partner-
ship, and that he is bound to contribute to his co-partners
his proportionate share of any sum advanced by them to
satisfy an enforceable demand against it". But is this
a necessary reason for refusing to invoke the entity the-
ory? Can it not be argued that even though the judgment
obtained may be levied solely upon the property of the
husband or that he may be required to contribute to its
payment, the fact remains that the suit is against the part-
nership as such and not against any one individual.
Since the Married Women's Acts there is no longer
the argument that the husband would have to appear both
as plaintiff and defendant. The procedural barrier is re-
moved. There is left only the question of public policy in
allowing tort suits between members of the same family.
Unquestionably, much may be said for the legalistic
reasoning of the court but the result it reaches is func-
tionally undesirable. It has been suggested that the adop-
tion of the entity theory requires resort to fiction. This
is true, but courts on other occasions have not hesitated
to adopt fictions where justice so required, and no conceiv-
able harm would result from employing them. "At times
MARYLAND LAW REVIEW
. . . changes in economic conditions and in legal concepts
have not coincided, and the courts, in the interest of sub-
stantial justice, have adopted dogmatic fictions to suit the
particular case whose circumstances did not seem to find
an adequate remedy in the logical application of old estab-
lished theories."'25 It is submitted that the court with
equally good reasoning could have reached a more de-
sirable result here.
In summary, it is seen that in Maryland a wife may
maintain an action ex contractu against her husband, and
an action ex delicto where the tort is committed against her
property. She may not sue the husband for torts committed
by him against her person, nor may she maintain such an
action against his partnership, though the partnership is
the wrongdoer. The questions whether she may bring suit
against her husband's employer for a tort committed by
the husband while in the scope of his employment, or may
sue the husband for torts committed by his employee, are
as yet unanswered in Maryland. In the first case, no ques-
tion of public policy would stand in the way of such suit.
The majority of the courts in this country have held that
she cannot maintain such an action, 2 but an ever-increas-
ing minority, reaching a more desirable result, have allowed
such suits holding that the employer may not take advan-
tage of the immunity of the employee. In the second
case supposed, it is fairly clear that such an action would
not be allowed under the announced doctrine of public pol-
icy adhered to by the Maryland courts.
The implications arising from the decision in the prin-
cipal case are numerous. Cases may be supposed from
those where the partnership consists of the husband and
an adult son, where it is clear no action will lie, to those
where the suit is against a joint stock company or busi-
ness trust in which the husband is a share-holder. A logi-
cal extension of the rule in the principal case would cer-
tainly bar such action, yet it is inconceivable that the court
"Carter, The Corporation as a Legal Entity (1919) 232.
"See 37 A. L. R. 165; 56 A. L. R. 331; 64 A. L. R. 296.
'See (1935) 21 Corn. L. Q. 157, 165.
CASENOTES AND COMMENTS
would refuse to adopt the entity theory in such a situa-
tion.2" Between these two extremes lies the suit against
the limited partnership, and the suit against the large part-
nership, consisting of say fifteen or twenty members. It
is possible such suits may be allowed under the Statute29
which permits suits to be brought against an unincorpo-
rated association of seven or more members in the firm
name, and also provides, that such an action "shall not
abate by reason of the . . . legal incapacity of any officer
or member of such association. . . ." But the statute was
probably not intended to embrace ordinary partnerships,
and literally read, it does not give much hope. It does, how-
ever, plainly recognize such an association as an entity for
the purposes of procedure.
When we analyze the reasons for permitting suits be-
tween spouses on contracts and for property torts while
those for personal torts are forbidden it should seem that
a further exception should be made for personal tort suits
against the partnerships, employers of the spouse, and
against spouses for torts by employees.
It may be justifiable to reject suits between spouses
for personal torts allegedly committed directly by the de-
fendant spouse because such suits are so likely to arise
out of the intimate personal relations of the spouses which
are undesirable of being dragged into the courtroom. It
is impractible to set up an objective standard to distinguish
those personal torts which do involve intimate relations
from those which do not and therefore could safely be liti-
gated in court. So it is that all personal tort suits must
be rejected.
But suits in contract and for property torts are so
little likely of involving intimate relations that litigation
concerning them may safely be permitted without impair-
ing the relations of the spouses. Thus has the distinction
been drawn in Maryland.
Why cannot it be said that the personal torts of a part-
For procedural purposes, such an association is treated as an entity, see
Md. Code, Art. 73, Sec. 31.
Md. Code, Art. 23, See. 104.
MARYLAND LAW REVIEW
nership, or by the husband as an employee of someone
else, or by the employee of the husband, similarly form
a clear cut group very unlikely of growing out of intimate
relations between the spouses and which may safely be de-
marcated from personal torts generally so that litigation
concerning them should be permitted.
It is as simple to draw the line between these torts
and other personal torts as it has already proven to be
to draw the distinction between all personal torts on the
one hand and the property tort and contract situations on
the other.
CONTRACT FOR LIFE-TIME EMPLOYMENT HELD
VOID FOR INDEFINITENESS OF SUBJECT
MATTER-BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAIL-
ROAD COMPANY V. KING1
Plaintiff -appellee was injured while employed as brake-
man by the defendant-appellant company. An officer of the
company urged plaintiff not to enter suit, saying: "We are
going to give you a job for life, if you listen to me; there
is something you can have at Baltimore or at Washington,
as switchman, lots of jobs." After recovering from his
injury, plaintiff was employed by the defendant as switch-
man for twenty-two years with only a single interruption
of three months when plaintiff was "on call". In 1931 the
job was abolished, plaintiff was discharged and he brought
suit for damages for the breach of the oral contract of
the defendant to employ him for life in consideration of
his forbearance to sue on the claim. Judgment was given
for the plaintiff in the lower court and defendant appealed.
Held: Judgment reversed. Since neither the type of work
to be done, nr the wages to be received were specified, the
contract was too indefinite to be enforced.
The problem raised by the principal case is not entirely
new in Maryland. It was first considered in Heckler v.
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company,2 where the injured
'168 Md. 142, 176.Atl. 626 (1935).167 Md. 226, 173 At. 12 (1934).


English

Tort Suit by Wife Against Husband\u27s Partnership - David v. David

Maryland Law Review
Volume 1 | Issue 1 Article 1
Title Page
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr
This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact
smccarty@law.umaryland.edu.
Recommended Citation
Title Page, 1 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1936)
Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol1/iss1/1
Maryland
Law Review
VOLUME ONE
1936-1937
Published By
Maryland Law Review, Inc.
Redwood and Greene Streets
Baltimore, Maryland
In Co-operation with:
Maryland State Bar Association
Bar Association of Baltimore City
Junior Bar Association of Baltimore City
University of Maryland School of Law
Copyright 1936-1937 by
MARYLAND LAW REvIEw, INC.


Title Page

Contract for Lifetime Employment Held Void for Indefiniteness of Subject Matter - Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company v. King

Proper Venue of Suit for Alimony Without Divorce - Ouster of Jurisdiction - Amendment - Woodcock v. Woodcock

Lentz, William

Revocation of a Will by Birth of a Child

Maryland Law Review
Volume 1 | Issue 1 Article 9
Double Liability of a Bank Stockholder for a Debt
of the Bank Incurred Before His Ownership of the
Stock - Ghingher v. Bachtell
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr
Part of the Bankruptcy Law Commons
This Casenotes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please
contact smccarty@law.umaryland.edu.
Recommended Citation
Double Liability of a Bank Stockholder for a Debt of the Bank Incurred Before His Ownership of the Stock - Ghingher v. Bachtell, 1 Md. L.
Rev. 95 (1936)
Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol1/iss1/9
MARYLAND LAW REVIEW
ute of 1935) which alone is effective to enable the scaling
down of the obligations of its political sub-divisions, That
the State could not directly authorize this is clear.17
DOUBLE LIABILITY OF A BANK STOCKHOLDER
FOR A DEBT OF THE BANK INCURRED BE-
FORE HIS OWNERSHIP OF THE STOCK-
GHINGHER V. BACHTELL'
Appellant, receiver of an insolvent bank, petitioned the
trial court for an order adjudging that the stockholders, in-
cluding the appellees, should be required to pay to the re-
ceiver sums equal to the par value of the stock held, under
the "double liability" of stockholders in State banks. The
trial court passed a summary order to that effect, which
order the appellees petitioned to have rescinded. The pe-
tition for rescission specifically contested the liability of the
stockholders for such debts of the bank as were incurred at
times when the petitioners were not then stockholders. This
petition alleged "That the statutes of Maryland under and
by virtue of which said order of assessment was passed, im-
pair the obligation of contracts, are discriminatory and de-
prive your petitioners of equal protection of the law, de-
prive your petitioners of property without due process of
law, and otherwise contravene the provisions of the Consti-
tutions of Maryland and of the United States." The trial
court granted the petition for rescission of the summary
order and the receiver appealed. Held: Decree reversed
and cause remanded with costs to the appellant.
The ruling of the trial court limited the double liability
of stockholders at the time of receivership to debts of the
bank contracted during the period of such stock ownership.
The ruling of the Court of Appeals held them liable for all
debts of the bank regardless of when such debts were in-
curred.
Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 4 L. Ed. 529 (1819).
164 Md. 678, 182 Atl. 558 (1936). Appeal pending in the Supreme Court
of the United States, No. 298, October Term, 1936.
CASENOTES AND COMMENTS
Prior to 1851 there was no "double liability" of bank
stockholders. The Constitution of 1851,2 the Constitution
of 1864,3 and the Constitution of 1867,' all provided for it.
The last named constitutional provision has now been re-
pealed by vote of the electorate at the November, 1936, elec-
tion in passing on a proposed constitutional amendment to
that effect., In addition to the constitutional double lia-
bility of bank stockholders, there is a statutory double lia-
bility of stockholders in trust companies, going back to
1892,6 and a statutory double liability for bank stockholders
dating from 1910.1
The Court pointed out that prior to 19048 in the case of
trust companies and prior to 1910' in the case of banks the
double liability was enforced by a direct suit between the
creditor and the stockholder. It is only since those dates
that there is provision for the receiver's collecting the
double liability from the stockholders and holding it for the
benefit of the creditors generally. Today the practice under
the statutes of 1904 and 1910 makes it clear that the stock-
holder's double liability constitutes an asset of the bank,
rather than an obligation to the creditor as such. The
Court pointed out that, with reference to banks, prior to
1910 there had been provided no-statutory method of en-
forcement of the Constitutional liability. So it was that
the law worked out a fictional contract between creditor and
stockholder, in order to support the action brought by the
former against the latter.
When the double liability had to be enforced on the basis
of a contract between stockholder and creditor, it was obvi-
ous that there could be such a contract only if the stock-
holder was such at the time the debt between creditor and
bank was incurred. So it was, that prior to 1910, bank
stockholders were doubly liable only for debts incurred at
2 Art. III, Sec. 45.
Art. II, Sec. 38.
'Art. III, Sec. 39.
6 See a comment on this In the editorial section, supra, of this number of
the Review.6 Acts, 1892, Ch. 109.
'Acts, 1910, Ch. 219.
8Acts, 1904, Ch. 101.
9 Acts, 1910, Ch. 219.
MARYLAND LAW REVIEW
the time they were stockholders. But the court pointed out
that the change made by the statute of 1910 which em-
powered the receiver to collect from the stockholder and
made the liability an asset of the bank resulted in the stock-
holder's being liable to the full extent of his double liability,
if necessary, even though some of the proceeds were to be
applied to debts of the bank incurred before he became such
a stockholder, or at a time when he was not a stockholder.
The Court pointed out that adoption of the rule con-
tended for by the stockholders would lead to innumerable
bookkeeping difficulties in its application.
The Court rejected the contention that, as to stock-
holders who became such prior to 1910, the change of that
date was unconstitutional as depriving creditors of their
direct remedy against the stockholder. But it was pointed
out both that the legislature had reserved existing rights in
the Act of 1910 and that, even if it had not, there is no vested
right in a remedy so long as one of substantially equal effect
is substituted. Another minor point in the case was as to
the right of stockholders who were also depositors to set off
their deposits against their double liability. The Court
ruled that this could not be done.
Aside from the minor constitutional point mentioned in
the preceding paragraph, the Court did not go at all into
the constitutionality under the United States Constitution
of imposing upon a stockholder double liability for a debt
of the bank incurred at a time when he was not such a stock-
holder. The Court put its decision entirely upon an inter-
pretation of the Maryland constitutional provision for
double liability and of the statutes passed thereunder. In
view of the fact that the case interprets a provision of the
Maryland Constitution it must be taken that there is im-
plicit in the decision that it does not violate the Maryland
Constitution to impose liability for debts incurred at a time
when the stockholder was not such. But there is left un-
answered whether this step violates the Constitution of the
United States with respect to those parts thereof set out by
the stockholders in their petition.
CASENOTES AND COMMENTS
The Review is informed that an appeal to the Supreme
Court of the United States has been entered in the principal
case and in its companion case.' ° In view of the policy of
the Review of not commenting on trial court cases until it
is certain that no appeal will be taken, nor on Court of Ap-
peals cases known to have been appealed to the Supreme
Court, the Review will refrain from comment on the instant
case until the appeals are decided. For the present the
Review will content itself with the above summary of the
facts and opinion.
It was felt desirable to call the attention of the readers
of the Review to the case for two reasons. One is the im-
portance of the subject in the light of the large number of
bank failures in the recent business depression. The other
is because of the fact that the constitutional provision for
double liability has recently been repealed by the vote
of the electorate. Thus it is that in the future such
cases cannot so frequently arise. But, no doubt, it will be
some time before questions of double liability arising from
bank failures before the repeal will be finally settled. Then,
too, it is an open question whether the repeal of the double
liability may be applied retroactively to banks which do not
become insolvent until after the repeal, with reference to
debts incurred by the bank prior thereto. Finally, the re-
peal of the double liability clause will not be effectual until
the legislature follows up the vote of the electorate in re-
pealing the constitutional provision with a repeal of the
statutory provision," which of its own force also imposes
double liability on bank and trust company stockholders.
Thus for these reasons the Review and, no doubt, its readers
will await with interest the ultimate decision of the case of
Ghingher v. Bachtell in the Supreme Court.
1O Ghingher v. Kausler, 169 Md. 696, 182 At. 566 (1936), No. 299, October
Term, 1936, Supreme Court of the United States.
"Md. Code, Art. 11, Sec. 72.


University of Maryland, Baltimore

Not a member yet

Editorial Section

Tort Suit by Wife Against Husband\u27s Partnership - David v. David

Title Page

Contract for Lifetime Employment Held Void for Indefiniteness of Subject Matter - Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company v. King

Proper Venue of Suit for Alimony Without Divorce - Ouster of Jurisdiction - Amendment - Woodcock v. Woodcock

Revocation of a Will by Birth of a Child

Double Liability of a Bank Stockholder for a Debt of the Bank Incurred Before His Ownership of the Stock - Ghingher v. Bachtell

8,311

9,747