Loney v. Loney

• Decision Date: 04 January 1898
• Citation: Loney v. Loney, 86 Md. 652, 38 A. 1071 (Md. 1898)
• Parties: LONEY v. LONEY et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

38 A. 1071

86 Md. 652

LONEY v. LONEY et al.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 4, 1898

Appeal from circuit court of Baltimore city.

Bill by Charles B. Loney against Annie M. Loney and others.From a decree for defendants, plaintiff appeals.Reversed.

France & France, for appellant.Abraham Sharp and Henry W. Fox, for appellees.

Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and BRYAN, PAGE, ROBERTS, and BOYD JJ.

BRYAN J.

Charles B. Loney alleged that his deceased father, Charles Loney made him a verbal gift of a portion of a certain leasehold lot in the city of Baltimore, and that he entered into possession of the portion given to him, and erected buildings on it at considerable expense, and that his father died without having executed a deed conveying to him the legal title to the lot.He filed a bill in equity against the executors of his father, and against his widow and the other children and the husbands of the married daughters.The answers of the widow and of the daughters and the husbands of such of them as are married deny the gift of the lot by the father.The answer of Lewis Loney, the only brother of the complainant, admits the allegations of the bill of complaint.The answer of the executors does the same.We shall have something to say about the answer of the executors hereafter.The court below dismissed the bill, and the complainant appealed.

The question is principally one of fact.The deceased owned and occupied a leasehold lot in the city of Baltimore, at the northwest corner of Paca and Barre streets, fronting 50 feet on Paca street, and running back to Spring alley, bounding 120 feet on Barre street.The portion of the lot claimed by the complainant is the rear part of it, which is separated from the front part by a 12-foot way, with a gate on Barre street.The evidence is very voluminous, and much of it has no important bearing on the question in controversy.We have considered it carefully, but it would answer no good purpose to cite it in detail.We shall content ourselves by mentioning such parts of it as bear on the essential questions in the case.The witness Redsecker testified that the father told him that the property "from here back"(pointing from the entrance on Barre street) belonged to his son.The old man (according to the witness) said: "I gave it to him, and he fixed it up to suit himself."At the time there was on this portion of the lot a three-story brick house, and in the rear of that a two-story brick building, used for a stable and carriage house.The witness said that he was pretty sure that the conversation took place in the summer of 1884.Mrs Dougherty, Miss Dougherty, Richardson, Leydecker, Switzer Lerian, Ensor, and Walter testify to the same general effect in respect to the gift.Cornthwaite testified that the improvements made on the rear portion of the lot were a very large brick stable, a two-story dwelling house, and a store.He also testified that he heard a conversation between old Mr. Loney and another person, in which the old man said "Fix the property to suit Charley, as it belongs to him."The complainant paid the expense of the improvements on the property.It is shown that he paid more than $1,100 for labor and materials used in the buildings; and it is evident from Ensor's testimony that the materials cost considerably more than the amounts shown by the bills which have been produced.The testimony in regard to these statements made by Loney, the father, has not been contradicted by direct testimony; but evidence is given by the mother and other members of the family tending indirectly to disprove the fact of the gift by the father.None of these witnesses ever heard of any such gift.They testify that they had no reason to believe that any had ever been made, and that they had every...