Fox v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 28 February 1879
• Citation: 50 Md. 564
• Parties: JAMES FOX v. JOHN REYNOLDS and Others.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

50 Md. 564

JAMES FOX v. JOHN REYNOLDS and Others.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

February 28, 1879

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City.

The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

The cause was submitted to BARTOL, C.J., BOWIE, BRENT and MILLER JJ.

Luther M. Reynolds, for the appellant.

There is in the bill no statement of fact or form of prayer to enable the court to decree a sale of the property.This was a proceeding, among others, against Charles and Timothy, who were supposed to be non-residents; and by inspection of the order of publication, it will be seen that they were thereby informed, the only purpose of the bill was to ascertain the complainant's quantity of interest in the property, the issue of an injunction and appointment of a receiver to collect the rents.

These two defendants are not, in fact, parties to the suit; but are in virtue of the statute constructively only in court.A party who is only constructively a party to a suit, and may not, in fact, know even of its existence, cannot be considered as in the suit for any other or different matter or purpose than that advertised in the order of publication.Snowden v. Snowden,1 Bland, 558;Lingan v Henderson,1 Bland, 245.

Whilst it will be conceded that the Chancellor acts as parens patriæ, for the protection of the persons and property of infants, and that he will, where the infant's property is small, and more money is necessary for the due maintenance of the infant, sometimes allow the capital to be broken in upon, and also that in the present case, this infant was the ward of the court; it is denied the court had any common law right, without cause shown, ex mero motu, to order a sale of his interest in the property.1 Daniell'sCh. Pr 168.And it is denied, he had the right to order the sale under either the statute for sale of infant's property, or for partition of his property, without the allegations in the bill, and proofs required by those statutes.Watson v. Godwin,4 Md. Ch. 26;Chalmers v. Chalmers,6 H. & J. 29.

Thomas A. Whelan, for the appellee, John Reynolds.

The proper parties being made by the bill, and all being brought into court, the relief--the decree for sale--was of such a character as to be applicable to the case, and in fact, was the only relief founded on the facts that could be granted; and the decree for sale is therefore proper.The complainant is not confined by the specific relief asked in his bill of complaint.He can obtain any relief consistent with the allegations of his bill, and is only prohibited from obtaining relief inconsistent, opposite to his allegations.Bolgiano v. Cooke,19 Md. 375-392;Hilleary v. Hurdle,6 Gill, 105-110;Dunnock v. Dunnock,3 Md. Ch. 140.

All matters of dispute between the complainant and the defendants having been settled by the decree, and it having been enrolled, it cannot be questioned, except upon appeal or bill of review; and it is binding upon all parties and privies, except on grounds of fraud or mistake.Bolgiano v. Cooke,19 Md. 395;Hunter v. Halton,4 Gill, 115;Dawes v. Thomas,4 Gill, 333.

Talbot J. Albert and George C. Maund, for the other appellees.

This is an extraordinary case, without precedent, where the complainant maintains that a guardian can acquire title to property belonging to her wards, by making advances to them for their maintenance and education, to the extent of their respective interests in the same; and that a sale under order of the Orphans' Court, when the wards' means of support are exhausted, is unnecessary.

Such a mode of acquisition is unknown to the laws of this State, and is preposterous, and if allowed, would be a baleful source of fraud by guardians and other fiduciaries.

Under such circumstances, the court was justified in passing a decree of sale, in order to make such distribution as the equities of the case required, under the general jurisdiction peculiar to courts of chancery, of marshaling assets, settling accounts, and in this State, of general supervisory power of the Orphans' Court.Barnes v. Compton,8 Gill, 391;Davis v. Clabaugh,30 Md. 509;Halton v. Weems,12 G. & J. 83;Brodess v. Thompson,2 H. & G. 120;Code, Art. 93, secs. 176, 192;Drury v. Conner,1 H. & G. 221.

A prayer for sale or for general relief was unnecessary, since the facts set forth in the bill and answer disclose a case in which a sale was a necessary sequence upon determining the respective interests of the parties in the property; and that a sale would be for the interest and advantage of all concerned, was apparent on the face of the proceedings.Bolgiano v. Cooke,19 Md. 375.

Courts of equity are not subject to the strict technical rules of pleading of other courts; and "if such a decree can be put upon the record as will meet the substantial justice of the case, it will be done."Crain v. Fergusson,1 Md. Ch. 151, 155;Kunkel v. Fitzhugh,22 Md. 577;StoryEq. Pl. sec. 316.

It is an undoubted power of the court of chancery to convert the real estate of an infant into money.Many cases of this kind may be found.In such cases, a court of chancery acts under the delegated authority from the King, who as parens patriæ, had jurisdiction over the persons and estates of infants.Dorsey v. Gilbert,11 G. & J. 91;2 StoryEq. secs. 317-319;Corrie's Case,2 Bland, 488.

Brent J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City finally ratifying the sale of certain leasehold property.The appellant was returned by the trustees as purchaser.After the order nisi,he came in and objected to the ratification, alleging "that the decree for the sale was improvidently passed, and as appears from the face of the record was unauthorized by law."

The property, consisting of a lot improved by four small buildings, was owned by Timothy Donovan, who died in 1852, leaving a widow, Jane Donovan, and eight children.Administration upon his estate was granted to the widow, who charged herself in her administration account with the appraised value of this leasehold property.The other assets being more than sufficient for the payment of debts and expenses, this leasehold property remained unsold, and in her final account its appraised value was distributed one-third to her, and two-thirds to the children.Becoming guardian to the latter, she seems to have supposed that she acquired a title to the whole, as the charge for board and maintenance for each of the children exceeded their respective interests in the property.She afterwards intermarried with John Reynolds, by whom she had one son, who is now a minor.After her death, which occurred in 1874, Michael Donovan, one of the children of her former husband, Timothy Donovan, took possession of the leasehold property in question, and collected the accruing rents for the benefit of himself and the other children.John Reynolds, the surviving husband, not being permitted to collect the rents and appropriate them, filed a bill, claiming that he had a life estate in the property, and praying that a receiver may be appointed to take charge of it, to collect the rents and to hold it until the respective rights of the parties are determined, and that Michael Donovan be required to account for the rents he had collected.There is no prayer for any other special relief except for an injunction, nor is there any prayer for general relief.All the children of Timothy Donovan, except William, who is alleged to be dead, and the minor child of John Reynolds are made defendants.Subp nas are asked against those living in Baltimore, and an order of publication against Mary A., Henry, Charles and Timothy, as non-residents.

The order of publication states the object of the bill is, to determine the interest of the complainant, John Reynolds, in the property, to appoint a receiver to take charge of it and to collect the rents, and to enjoin the defendants from interfering with it.

All the defendants appear and answer, (the minor child answering by guardian,) except Charles and Timothy, against whom an interlocutory decree was passed under the order of publication.

The testimony taken is entirely in reference to the prayers of the bill as above stated, and to the objects of the bill as...