Summary
The Maryland Court of Appeals reviewed a summary judgment holding a husband and wife personally liable for building materials allegedly sold on an open account. The court held that the evidence created genuine factual questions concerning whether the materials were purchased by the individuals or their corporation and whether the corporation acted as the wife's agent. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiffs' motion and supporting affidavit were sufficient to support summary judgment under the Maryland Summary Judgment Rules.
- Whether the depositions established, without a genuine dispute of material fact, that the Whites were individually liable for the building materials.
- Whether the evidence conclusively established that the corporation acted as Augusta White's express or implied agent, or that agency by estoppel applied.
Holdings
- Summary judgment was improper because the evidence did not conclusively establish whether the husband purchased the materials for himself, for the corporation, or in some other capacity, and the wife's liability depended on unresolved agency questions.
- When different inferences may reasonably be drawn from undisputed facts, the party against whom the inferences are sought to be drawn is entitled to the inferences more favorable to that party's contentions.
- Agency by estoppel did not provide a basis for summary judgment because the record showed no action by the alleged principals that could have misled the plaintiffs into believing that a nonexistent agency existed.
Key quotations
“It is essential to the entry of a summary judgment under our Rule 4 that there be no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (286)
“The court does not, of course, attempt to decide any issue of fact or of credibility, but only whether such issues exist.” (286)
“Thus the proposed procedure is not a substitute for a trial, but only a hearing to decide whether a trial is necessary.” (286)
Factual background
Elmer and Augusta White owned a farm as tenants by the entireties and, with their son, owned all stock of the E.J. White Engineering Corporation. Friel Lumber Company supplied materials used in repairing or constructing buildings on the farm, but the account had generally been billed to the corporation. The husband testified that the corporation made the purchases, while the record left uncertain whether he acted individually, for the corporation, or as an agent for his wife. The plaintiffs nevertheless sued both spouses individually and obtained summary judgment.
Procedural history
Friel Lumber Company sued the Whites individually on an open account for building supplies. The Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment for $2,849.71 and costs, relying on the motion papers and the defendants' depositions. The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed and remanded for trial because the record presented material uncertainties concerning the capacity in which the purchases were made and whether the corporation acted as the wife's agent.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded for trial to resolve the factual uncertainties concerning who ordered the materials, in what capacity the orders were made, and whether the corporation acted as Augusta White's agent.