Cherry v. Siegert
| Decision Date | 17 December 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 70,70 |
| Citation | 215 Md. 81,136 A.2d 754 |
| Parties | Leon Wilson CHERRY et ux. v. Iva E. SIEGERT et vir. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Thomas J. Curley, Annapolis, for appellants.
George B. Woelfel, Annapolis, for appellees.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County (Macgill, J.) declaring that Iva E. Siegert and Oscar Lynn Siegert, her husband (the Siegerts) are seized and possessed of a good and merchantable fee simple title in and to a parcel of land situate in the Seventh Election District of Anne Arundel County, containing two acres, three roods and six perches of land, which Fritz J. Witt (the deceased), and his wife acquired by deed from Thomas E. Atwell, dated January 14, 1925, saving and excepting therefrom two smaller parcels which were subsequently conveyed to others.
On June 27, 1952, Robert Witt and other heirs of the deceased, as complainants, filed a bill for the sale of the real estate of which the deceased had died seized and possessed in lieu of partition in kind, against all unknown heirs of the deceased and two mortgagees, as respondents, being No. 10,511 Equity (the partition proceeding). The unknown heirs were duly notified by order of publication. Presumably the mortgagees were duly summoned and answered. A decree pro confesso was obtained against the unknown heirs, and testimony was taken pursuant thereto. During the taking of the testimony one of the witnesses named all of the heirs of the deceased who had been published against as unknown, but no effort was made to file a supplemental pleading, or otherwise amend the partition proceeding, on the assumption that the newly discovered heirs were bound by the order of publication. In due course a decree for sale was passed. Trustees were appointed and after due notice of the sale, the property was sold to Iva E. Siegert. After the payment of the court costs and the two mortgages there were insufficient funds to pay the funeral bill of the deceased's wife and there was never any money for distribution among the heirs of the deceased.
The Siegerts, after acquiring title to the property offered it for sale and secured a prospective purchaser therefor, but he was advised by counsel or the title examiner that the title was defective because some of the interested parties to the partition proceeding were not properly notified. In an effort to cure the alleged title defect, the Siegerts, on December 3, 1953, filed a bill to quiet title against Iva Witt Ward and others, all of whom were heirs of the deceased, being No. 11,224 Equity (the bill quia timet or bill to quiet title). All parties defendant were either properly summoned or notified by order of publication. On the twenty defendants, nineteen failed to answer, and a decree pro confesso was passed against them. The other defendant, Orion Larson (the incompetent), the only person under disability, answered by a duly appointed guardian ad litem. In due course testimony was taken and the court (Michaelson, J.) on May 13, 1955, passed a decree quieting the title to the property in question and removing the cloud thereon----
'* * * so that * * * Iva E. Siegert * * * shall * * * hold said land and the title thereof free, clear and discharged of the claim or claims of any of the parties to this proceeding or by anyone claiming by, from or under them, as fully and effectually as though the * * * parties in this proceeding had been named and summoned in the original bill for the sale of the aforesaid realty in No. 10,511 Equity * * *.'
On August 1, 1956, the Siegerts, by a duly executed agreement of sale, sold the property to Leon Wilson Cherry and Nellie Jane Cherry, his wife (the Cherrys), wherein they agreed to 'convey the property by a good and merchantable title.' Upon an application for a mortgage loan, the Cherrys were advised that title to the property was still defective. The Cherrys declined to consummate the agreement of sale, and the Siegerts filed the bill for a declaratory decree which is the subject of this appeal.
When the partition proceeding was filed the incompetent, one of the heirs of the deceased, was an inmate of Spring Grove State Hospital. He was not then and has never been adjudicated to be an incompetent by either a jury or a court. In the partition proceeding he was made a party plaintiff without being identified as non compos mentis. He did not sue by a next friend and no guardian ad litem was appointed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porter v. Schaffer
...divide between quiet title and ejectment. See Romney v. Steinem, 228 Md. 605, 608, 180 A.2d 873 (1962); Cherry v. Siegert, 215 Md. 81, 85, 136 A.2d 754 (1957)(stating that the 1955 statute was "merely declaratory of the law as it existed prior to June 1, Possession is relevant to a discussi......
-
Thomas v. Hardisty, 294
...We think it is not sustainable. Equity jurisdiction over such suits has been recognized in this State for many years. Cherry v. Siegert, 215 Md. 81, 136 A.2d 754; Queen v. Anderson, 191 Md. 522, 62 A.2d 612; Homewood Realty Corp. v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 160 Md. 457, 154 A. 58, 78 A.L.R......
-
Peruzzi Bros., Inc. v. Contee
...and that the marketability of a title should be encouraged and protected whenever it is possible under the law. Cherry v. Siegert, 215 Md. 81, 136 A.2d 754 (1957). The doctrine of estoppel stands on the broad ground of public policy and good faith. It is interposed to guard against fraud an......
-
Holder v. Young
... ... construe local ordinances and charters under the same canons ... of statutory interpretation as we apply to statutes." ... Cherry v. Mayor of Baltimore Cty. , 475 Md. 565, 598 ... (2021). "The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation ... is to ascertain and ... encapsulation of the bill quia timet into the quiet ... title statute. See Cherry v. Siegert ... ...