Opinion
[No. 341, September Term, 1962.]
Decided June 27, 1963. Motion for rehearing filed July 19, 1963, denied September 9, 1963.
LIENS — Creditor Who Acquired Without Notice A Lien By Judicial Proceedings For A Debt Antecedent To The Delivery Of The Property Subject To A Conditional Contract Of Sale Not Protected By Code (1957), Art. 21, Sec. 66. p. 162
H.C.
Decided June 27, 1963.
Motion for rehearing filed July 19, 1963, denied September 9, 1963.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (ANDERSON, J.)
Motion to quash a writ of fieri facias by General Motors Acceptance Corporation which had been obtained by Standard Supplies, Inc., against Gerald A. and Martha L. Wehrle in execution of a judgment. From an order of the trial court granting the motion, Standard Supplies appealed.
Order affirmed, with costs.
The cause was argued before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, PRESCOTT, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
Robert B. Meyers for appellant.
J. Bowie Lillard for appellee.
Our decision herein is controlled by what we said in Piedmont Land Devel. Co. v. Carney, 232 Md. 21.
The facts are not disputed. Appellant obtained judgment against Gerald A. and Martha L. Wehrle on November 28, 1961. Gerald purchased an automobile subject to a conditional sales contract. Title thereto was taken in the name of Martha. The contract was assigned to General Motors Acceptance Corporation, and, on January 24, 1962, it was recorded. In May of 1962, appellant obtained a writ of fieri facias, and, for the purposes of this case, we shall assume it was obtained "without notice." The sheriff levied upon the automobile, and GMAC filed a motion to quash the writ. The value of the automobile, when sold, was less than GMAC's claim. After hearing, the trial judge upheld the claim.
Appellant contends that it comes within the category of a creditor "who acquired without notice a lien by judicial proceedings," and, as such, it is protected by the provisions of Code (1957), Article 21, § 66. All of appellant's claim is for a debt antecedent to the delivery of the property subject to the conditional contract of sale. We pointed out in Piedmont, supra, that this class of creditors is not protected by the recording requirements of Section 66.
Order affirmed, with costs.