10 D.C. 118 (D.C.D.C. 1879), 4552, Kaiser v. Stickney

Docket NºEQUITY.— 4552.
Citation10 D.C. 118
Opinion JudgeMr. Justice HUMPHREYS
Party NameCAROLINE AND HENRY KAISER v. GEORGE W. STICKNEY, SURVIVING TRUSTEE, AND JOHN A. J. CRESWELL, ROBERT PURVIS, AND R. H. T. LEIPOLD, COMMISSIONERS OF THE FREEDMAN'S SAVINGS AND TRUST COMPANY.
AttorneyJohn A. Grow , for complainants. Enoch Totten, contra .
CourtSupreme Court of District of Columbia

Page 118

10 D.C. 118 (D.C.D.C. 1879)

CAROLINE AND HENRY KAISER

v.

GEORGE W. STICKNEY, SURVIVING TRUSTEE, AND JOHN A. J. CRESWELL, ROBERT PURVIS, AND R. H. T. LEIPOLD, COMMISSIONERS OF THE FREEDMAN'S SAVINGS AND TRUST COMPANY.

EQUITY.— No. 4552.

Supreme Court, District of Columbia.

September Term, 1879

I. A deed of trust executed by husband and wife upon her real estate as security for money advanced to the wife alone, is effectual to pass her title in the property for the purpose of securing the loan in a court of equity.

II. A husband conveyed lands to a third party, who conveyed the same to the wife by arrangement, with the usual covenant of warranty. A creditor who advanced money to the wife for the improvement of the property and to pay off prior liens thereon, took a deed of trust upon the property from both husband and wife. It was held that she could enter into the contract; that the deed was binding upon her, and that the court would make a decree of sale of the property to pay the indebtedness.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

The original bill in this cause was filed by Henry Kaiser and Caroline, his wife, for the purpose of preventing a threatened sale of property under the powers of a deed of trust.

On the 17th day of April, 1871, Henry Kaiser and Caroline Kaiser, being indebted to the Freedman's Savings and Trust Company in the sum of $12,000 for money borrowed from the trust company, made a joint promissory note for that sum, payable one year after date, with interest at the rate of ten per centum per annum. To secure the payment of this note, they executed, acknowledged, and delivered to Eaton and Stickney an ordinary trust deed, by which they conveyed to the trustees the property involved in the suit, with power to sell the same at public auction on default in the payment of the note. This note and the deed of trust were executed by both of the complainants. The money borrowed on this security was paid out by the proper officer of the trust company to remove various liens upon the property conveyed by the trust deed, and to pay for the erection of a building thereon. This disposition of the fund was made in pursuance of a written contract.

After this money had been exhausted, another loan was negotiated for by the complainants from the trust company. On the 25th day of October, 1871, they borrowed the additional sum of $4,000, and jointly signed another promissory note for that amount, payable one year after date, with interest at ten per centum per annum, and to secure its payment jointly executed and acknowledged a second deed of trust, by which they conveyed the same property to the same trustees. This deed also contains the usual powers of sale in case of default. These trust deeds were promptly recorded. There is now due on this debt over $18,500 for principal and interest, and the taxes and arrears, which must be paid,...

To continue reading

Request your trial