Hardesty v. Richardson

• Decision Date: 15 June 1876
• Citation: Hardesty v. Richardson, 44 Md. 617 (Md. 1876)
• Parties: RICHARD S. HARDESTY v. E. HALL RICHARDSON, Executor of RICHARD C. HARDESTY, &c.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

44 Md. 617

RICHARD S. HARDESTY v. E. HALL RICHARDSON, Executor of RICHARD C. HARDESTY, &c.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 15, 1876

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Harford County, in Equity.

The appellant brought his action of ejectment in the Circuit Court for Harford County, 18th of December, 1869, against his son, Richard C. Hardesty, to recover a farm in said county called "Wilna," and obtained judgment 23rd May 1870.In August, 1870, Richard C. Hardesty filed his bill on the equity side of said Court, against the appellant, a resident of Baltimore City, praying an injunction against the execution of said judgment, and for the specific performance of an alleged contract by his father, for the conveyance of said land.The injunction was issued as prayed.After answer filed, the complainant died, and the appellee, his executor and trustee, as also the cestuis que trust, were made parties, testimony was taken, and after argument the case was submitted.

The Court, (WATTERS, J.,) decreed a perpetual injunction, and a conveyance in fee-simple of said land, to the trustee by Richard S. Hardesty, the defendant.

From this decree the present appeal was taken.The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., BRENT, GRASON, ALVEY and ROBINSON, J.

Henry W. Archer and Henry D. Farnandis, for the appellant.

An agreement, to merit the interposition of a Court of equity, must be fair, reasonable, bona fide, certain in all its parts, mutual, and for a good and sufficient consideration.If any of these be wanting, equity will not relieve.Geiger vs. Green,4 Gill, 472, 475;Waters vs. Howard,8 Gill, 262, 277, 282;Mundorff vs. Kilbourn,4 Md., 459, 464;Rider, &c. vs. Gray,10 Md., 282;Stoddard vs. Bowie,5 Md., 18, 28, 34.

The complainant must make out by clear and satisfactory proof, the very contract laid in the bill, and part performance must be of the identical contract set up.1 Story'sEq. Jur., sec. 762;Beard vs. Linthicum,1 Md. Ch. Dec., 345, 348-9;Duvall vs. Myers,2 Md. Ch. Dec., 401, 406;Mundorff vs. Kilbourn,4 Md., 459, 462.

Acts of alleged part performance must be referrible exclusively to the alleged contract.They cannot prove the contract, which must be first clearly established.Bowie vs. Stonestreet,6 Md., 418.

Alleged acts of part performance have different import when between strangers, and between father and child; such as would, in the first case, imply a contract, might, in the second, be referred to something else.Waters vs. Howard,8 Gill, 262;Eckart vs. Eckart,3 Penn., 332-65.

Equity will not enforce a voluntary contract to give or convey though in part performed.Black vs. Cord,2 H. & G., 100;Pennington vs. Gittings,2 G. & J., 208;Lloyd vs. Brooks,34 Md., 28;1 Story'sEq. Jur., secs. 706, 793 b. As to voluntary contracts inter vivos, the general principle is, that equity will not interfere, but leaves them where the law finds them.1 Story'sEq. Jur., sec. 706;Lloyd vs. Brooks,34 Md., 28.

Equity will not generally enforce a voluntary settlement against the settler, though it will against his heir.Haines vs. Haines,6 Md., 435, 444.Natural love and affection will support a deed, but not sufficient to enforce a voluntary agreement.Pennington vs. Gittings,2 G. & J., 208, 217-18.

The consideration must be embodied in and be part of the contract.The two cases most relied upon by the appellee, in his argument below, are clearly distinguishable from this.In King's Heirs vs. Thompson and Wife,9 Peters, 218, it was clearly proved that King agreed to convey the land, if Thompson would make the improvements.They were made subsequently, but being according to the agreement, and part of it, were a sufficient consideration.So in Haines vs. Haines,6 Md., 435, the Court found it unequivocally proved that a like contract had been made, viz., that if Mordecai did certain improvements, the father would convey.But in the case at bar, there is no room for a contract by implication.An express contract is set up, a definite consideration stated, as part of that contract, on which alone the complainant can have relief.The subsequent improvements are not alleged to have been, in pursuance of the agreement, set up, or to have been any part of the consideration, or any part of the contract, and cannot be relied on to give it validity.

The decree must be according to the allegata et probata; nothing is in issue but what is alleged in the bill.1 Daniel'sCh. Pr., 377, and note 2.Even if the contract be proved, a decree for specific performance is not ex debito justitiæ, but the Court will exercise a sound discretion, in view of all the circumstances, in determining whether to decree specific performance or not.Geiger vs. Green,4 Gill, 472, 475;Waters vs. Howard,8 Gill, 262;Wadsworth vs. Manning,4 Md., 59;Crane vs. Gough,4 Md., 316, 331.

Edwin H. Webster and John H. Price, for the appellees.

The principles of law which should govern this case, have been distinctly recognized by the Court of Appeals of our own State, and by the Supreme Court of the United States.Shepherd vs. Bevin,9 Gill, 32;King's Heirs vs. Thompson and wife,9 Peters, 204;Haines vs. Haines,6 Md., 435;Freeman vs. Freeman,43 N. Y., 34;Neal vs. Neal,9 Wallace, 1.

ALVEY J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

In all applications like the present the rule is certainly strict in requiring the most satisfactory evidence of the contract sought to be enforced.The proof must be clear, definite and conclusive as to the fact of the gift, and those acts done on the faith of it which render inequitable any attempt by the donor to avoid the gift.But where the proof is thus clear, and all other conditions are shown to exist to entitle the party to the assistance of a Court of equity, that Court will not hesitate to lend its aid, simply because the proof may rest entirely in parol.

Here the proof is definite and conclusive that the farm "Wilna" was purchased by Richard S. Hardesty, the father, for Richard C. Hardesty, the son, upon the latter's selection.The farm was purchased with the distinct understanding that the son should at once take possession, hold and use it as his own; the father repeatedly admitting and stating to divers persons, and as if he desired it to be so understood by every one, that he had purchased the farm for his son and had given it to him, and placed him in possession of it as exclusive owner.And in accordance with these admissions and statements by the father were the continuous pretensions and conduct of the son, from the time of his taking possession in the fall of 1864 to the time of his death in 1871.He was all the while in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the farm, as his own.It was assessed to him, and he paid all the taxes on it, from the time it was purchased down to the time when the father sought to recover it by virtue of the legal title held by him.The buildings on the farm were insured by and in the name of the son; and in obtaining the insurance the father made representations in reference to the ownership of the farm which, when taken in connection with the other facts of the case, would seem to be quite conclusive against him.He introduced his son to the officers of the insurance company as an applicant for insurance, and in answer to a specific inquiry as to the ownership of the farm, he stated that he had purchased the farm for his son, and that as soon as some preliminary arrangements were made, he intended to make him a deed for it; that he had given him the farm.The preliminary arrangements referred to were, doubtless, the procuring the conveyance of the legal title from the Messrs. Tyson, from whom the farm was purchased, and with whom there was some misunderstanding or controversy as to the quantity of land to be conveyed.Additional insurance was subsequently...