Billingslea v. Baldwin

• Decision Date: 12 May 1865
• Citation: Billingslea v. Baldwin, 23 Md. 85 (Md. 1865)
• Parties: WALTER BILLINGSLEA v. JOHN S. BALDWIN and Wife, and others.
• Court: Maryland Supreme Court

23 Md. 85

WALTER BILLINGSLEA v. JOHN S. BALDWIN and Wife, and others.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

May 12, 1865

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

APPEAL from the Equity Side of the Circuit Court for Harford county.

On the 19th day of December 1843, during the life of Walter Billingslea, Sr., the devisee for life, under the will of Walter Billingslea, deceased, of certain real-estate mentioned in the will, Pue and wife filed their bill on the Equity Side of Harford County Court, against John T. Baldwin and wife, and others, children of Elisha Bull, deceased alleging that the complainants and defendants are jointly entitled to the reversion in the lands now in the possession of Walter Billingslea, Sr., the devisee for life; that the same are incapable of division, and it would be advantageous to all parties concerned to have the said lands sold; that they claim the same as heirs-at-law of Elisha Bull, deceased that the defendants, Mary C. and Sarah Ann Bull, are infants and praying a decree for the sale of the lands, and general relief.

Answers were filed by the adult defendants, admitting the allegations and consenting to the sale, and answers for the infants, by their guardians, were filed in the usual form. On the 3rd of February 1849, a decree for a sale was passed and a trustee appointed.

The trustee, on the 9th of July 1849, reported that he had sold the lands (being the reversion belonging to the heirs of Elisha Bull, deceased, after the life-estate of Walter Billingslea, Sr.,) to Walter Billingslea, (the son,) for $695, payable according to the terms of the decree, with which the purchaser agreed to comply by memorandum in writing.

On the same day an order of ratification nisi was passed, but no further proceedings were had until the 30th of June 1853, when the defendants filed objections to the ratification of the sale on several grounds, viz:

1st. Because the decree was prematurely and erroneously passed.

2nd. The defendants, Baldwin and wife, were never duly summoned, never appeared or answered, or authorized any one to appear and answer for them, and their answers were filed by mistake, and without their knowledge and consent.

3rd. Because it was not for the interest and advantage of the parties in interest, or any of them, that the lands should be sold during the life of the tenant for life, and the sale was greatly below and not exceeding one-sixth or seventh of the actual value of the land.

4th. Because the purchaser abandoned the sale, and refused to comply with the terms of sale, and both the objectants and purchaser understood and believed that the sale had been cancelled, and no sale would be made until after the death of the tenant for life.

5th. Because, since the death of the tenant for life, which has recently occurred, and by which the value of the interest decreed to be sold has been greatly enhanced, the purchaser has fraudulently procured the sale reported by the trustee to be renewed and revived at the same price, notwithstanding he had long before abandoned and relinquished the same.

6th. Because some of the objectants had no sufficient notice of the time and place of sale, and the proceedings are in other respects imperfect and erroneous.

For which reasons the objectants prayed the sale might be set aside, and that they might have leave to file a bill of review, to have the decree for the sale reconsidered and vacated, as well for errors apparent on the face of the proceedings, as on the facts which have come to their knowledge since the date of the decree.

On the 9th of September 1853, the same objectants filed a petition for leave to file a bill of review, in which it is averred that Baldwin and wife were never summoned, and never appeared or answered, or authorized any one to appear for them, and none of the petitioners had any notice of the taking of testimony in the cause, nor did they know, until very recently, that any testimony had been taken; that recently, and within the last three months, and not before, it became known to Baldwin and wife that they had been made parties to the cause, and that an answer had been filed in their name, admitting the allegations of the bill, though they could at any time have proven the most material allegation in the bill was not true, and that it was not for the interest of the parties to have the land sold; that within the last two or three months they have ascertained there was no testimony, in fact, taken to prove that the sale would be advantageous to the parties, but that there are errors in the commissioner's return, and the witnesses who were examined only proved that a sale of the entire estate, including the life-estate, would be advantageous, but that a sale of the reversionary interest, alone, would be very injurious and prejudicial to the parties entitled; that the decree was obtained by surprise and mistake; that the cause was submitted for decree by the complainants and their counsel, without the knowledge or consent of the petitioners; and that these and other facts which have recently come to their knowledge, within the last two or three months, and of which they could not have the benefit at the date of the decree, would, if known to the Court, have prevented the passage of the decree; that they are, moreover, advised that the decree and the proceedings under which it was passed, are irregular and erroneous, as appears upon their face: 1st. Because the Court, by which the decree was passed, had no jurisdiction to decree the sale of the reversionary title, subject to the life-estate. 2nd. Because the said estate belonged to the petitioners, as heirs-at-law of Elisha Bull, who died intestate thereof, and they were entitled to the benefit of the Act to direct descents, of which they are deprived by the decree. And 3rd. Because the proceedings are in other respects irregular and erroneous.

Upon this petition leave to file a bill of review was granted, and on the 17th of October 1853, the bill was filed by the defendants against the complainants in the original bill, not making either the trustee or the purchaser a party thereto. In this bill the allegation of the original bill, that it would be advantageous for all parties concerned to have the land sold, is denied to be true, and the complainants especially deny that it was, or that any judicious person ever believed it was for the interest of the parties to have the land sold subject to the life-estate, and this would have been proved if they had ever had an opportunity to do so; that it was manifestly for their interest that the land should not be sold before it had vested in possession, and that the Court had no power or jurisdiction to decree the sale of the remainder.

It contains the further allegation, by Street, that he never did consent, nor was he willing for a decree for a sale, nor did he or his wife ever authorize or employ any solicitor or other person to appear for them, or make any agreements, or do any act in the premises in their name and on their behalf, and only recently, and long since the decree, to wit: within the last six months, has it come to their knowledge that they have been represented by a solicitor, whose appearance and acts in the case, they aver to have been entered by some mistake; and Street avers that throughout the whole proceedings he understood and believed that Messrs. Scott and Fernandis were the joint solicitors of the complainants, and not of the defendants, or of any of them; that the decree is erroneous, because it directs the sale of a remainder, and because the estate decreed to be sold was one to which the parties were entitled by descent, and no valuation of the land was made by commissioners, and no opportunity given any of the heirs to take the land and pay the others their proportionate shares; and because the proceedings were irregular and defective, and not in accordance with the Acts of Assembly in such case made and provided; that at the last May Term of this Court, Baldwin and wife ascertained that they were made by the proceedings to appear to have been parties thereto, & c., but that no subpœ na was ever issued for them to the county in which they resided, and to the best of their knowledge and belief, they never were summoned, and never did appear or answer, or employ or authorize any solicitor to appear or answer for them, or make any agreements for them in the case, and that the answer and agreements appearing to have been filed, were so filed without their knowledge, authority or consent; that they had no notice of the taking of testimony, and that they have recently ascertained that two witnesses were examined, one of whom would have proved that the sale would be very injurious to them, but the interrogatory on that point was not put to him, and that the other witness misunderstood the question, and only meant to testify that a sale of the whole estate would be advantageous and advisable, and in support of these allegations the affidavits of the two witnesses are filed as exhibits with the bill; that the decree was obtained and passed by mistake and surprise, and that they are greatly injured thereby; and prayed that it be reversed, and the original bill dismissed.

Hoskins, in his affidavit, filed as an exhibit to this bill, swears that he knows the lands, and thinks they would sell at public sale for over $5,000, but to sell them subject to the life-estate, would necessarily cause a great sacrifice, and he thinks that during the life of the tenant for life, it must have been apparent to every judicious man who knew the property, that it would be very prejudicial to the tenants in remainder to sell their estate at public auction, subject to the life-estate, and that his opinion is not founded on the...