Maryland State Fair, Inc. v. Schmidt

• Decision Date: 26 February 1925
• Docket Number: 14.
• Citation: Maryland State Fair, Inc. v. Schmidt, 147 Md. 613, 128 A. 365 (Md. 1925)
• Parties: MARYLAND STATE FAIR, INC., v. SCHMIDT ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

128 A. 365

147 Md. 613

MARYLAND STATE FAIR, INC., v. SCHMIDT ET AL.

No. 14.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

February 26, 1925

Rehearing Denied and Motion for Modification of Opinion Overruled April 7, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Anne Arundel County; Francis Neal Parke Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Basilicus H. Schmidt and others against the Maryland State Fair, Incorporated.From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals.Affirmed.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT, DIGGES, and WALSH, JJ.

C. Alex Fairbank, Jr., and Frank B. Ober, both of Baltimore (Ogle Marbury and Janney, Ober, Slingluff & Williams, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Washington Bowie, of Baltimore (Stephen W. Gambrill and Garner W Denmead, both of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.

OFFUTT J.

Being seized as tenants by the entireties of a tract of land containing about 122 acres in Anne Arundel county, near the present location of the Laurel race track, Adolph Schmidt and Louisa, his wife, on July 24, 1888, joined in a deed conveying it to Louisa Schmidt, the wife, in trust to hold, use, occupy, and enjoy it during her life upon the payment of taxes, and, at her death, upon their payment of certain charges aggregating $900 against the property, the grantors conveyed the home and 10 acres surrounding it to Kate Schmidt, wife of Jonah Boyle, a daughter, and 18 acres to Augustus, a son, and the remainder in equal shares to their other children, Mary S. S. (the wife of C. Wesley Jess), Basilicus, Alexander Oscar, Emma (the wife of John S. Boyle), and Henry, subject to a privilege reserved to Adolph to occupy during his life, upon certain conditions, a part of the property.

Alexander renounced the provision for him in the deed, and his interest was acquired by Augustus.The other children paid off the charges against the property, and in 1895the trustee and life tenant, acting under a power contained in the deed, agreed with the remaindermen to allot and grant to them certain portions of the property, and, accordingly, to carry out that agreement, they had the property survey.Prior to the survey, the parties in interest had agreed that Wilhelmina Katherine, also called Kate, Schmidt should receive an equal share with the other children, and the surveyor was directed to apportion the property which they then believed contained 118 acres, so as to give to Gustave, also called Augustus, 18 acres, and to each of the other children who took remainders under the deed of trust, 16.6 acres.The survey, however, disclosed the fact that the tract contained 122 acres, but when the parties were informed of that fact, the surveyor had already platted the property, setting off 18 acres for Augustus and 16.6 acres for each of the other children and a residuum of 4 1/2 acres was left as an unallotted parcel on the plat.It was then agreed that, rather than incur the expense of a resurvey, deeds would be prepared allotting and conveying the property in accordance with the plat and the descriptions which the surveyor had prepared, and that was accordingly done.

On February 10, 1896, Louisa Schmidt, trustee, and Adolph Schmidt conveyed to Augustus in fee the 18 acres given him by the deed of trust, and later he was granted Alexander's part, which fully satisfied all his claims against the estate, and he thereafter had no further interest in it.On April 12, 1897, the same parties with all their children but the grantee joined in a deed conveying to Wilhelmina K. Schmidt 16.6 acres in lieu of the 10 acres given to her by the deed, and which she accepted in lieu thereof, so that that grant fully satisfied the provisions made for her in the deed, and she had no further interest in the remaining property.The remaining lots containing 16.6 acres were then conveyed by several deeds respectively to Henry, Basilicus, Emma, and Mary.By these deeds the entire tract was conveyed in fee to the several children of Adolph and Louisa Schmidt(excepting Alexander) who took remainders under the deed of trust excepting the lot of 4 1/2 acres which is the subject-matter of this proceeding.Manifestly, unless the life tenant and remaindermen had united in some disposition of that lot, the title to it remained in them as tenants in common, and that is the theory for which the appellees contend in this case.

In 1902Louisa Schmidt as an individual conveyed that 4 1/2-acre lot to Emma J. C. Boyle, trustee, from whom by various mesne conveyances the claim of the appellant in this case is derived, and it asserts that the appellees are estopped by certain recitals in the partition deeds from claiming any interest in that lot, and these two contentions present the issue in this case.

Under the deed from Louisa Schmidt to Emma J. C. Boyle, trustee, the grantee held the property in trust for her own use until her daughter Irene should attain the age of 18, and then for the use of her daughter until she should become 21 years old, and then to her in fee.Irene subsequently married Julian Studds, of Del Ray, Va., and on May 29, 1911, she united in a deed conveying such interest as she had in the 4 1/2 acres to one Samuel L. Hopkins, who appears to have been acting as agent for the Laurel Four County Fair Association, which needed it to carry out a plan for increasing the size of its track.Hopkins promptly conveyed the property to the race track company, of which the appellant here is the successor, and it has also acquired and holds the interest of Emma J. C. Boyle in the whole property.

There is some conflict in the evidence as to whether the race track company or its privies had actual notice at the time it acquired the 4 1/2-acre property, or before it improved it, that any of the appellees claimed an interest in it, but there is some testimony that it did have such notice.

It is agreed in the case that the fair value of the racing franchises, real estate, and improvements and other property owned by the appellant is $750,000, and that its race track crosses a part of the land in question.

On September 1, 1922, Basilicus H. Schmidt and others claiming an interest in the 4 1/2 acres under the deed of trust to Louisa Schmidt brought an action in ejectment in the circuit court for Anne Arundel county against the appellant for the possession of that tract of land.That case in due course was tried before the court sitting as a jury, and, at the conclusion of the trial, a judgment was entered for Basilicus H. Schmidt, Mary L. Jess, and Henry Schmidt for the three-fourths undivided moiety of the property described in the declaration, for $1, damages, and costs, and from that judgment the present appeal was taken.

The defendant offered 22 prayers.The court granted 5 and rejected 17 of these prayers, and granted a special instruction of its own.Without discussing them in detail, it is sufficient to say that if the appellees were entitled to recover at all, the granted prayers correctly stated the law and submitted the case fully and fairly to the court sitting as a jury.The real and controlling question in the case is presented by the action of the trial court in refusing certain prayers of the defendant, which rested on one of these propositions, that by accepting the partition deeds the several grantees named in them disclaimed any interest in the 4 1/2-acre residuum, and were thereby barred from recovering any such interest in this action, or that the recitals in those deeds characterized the possession by Louisa Schmidt, the trustee, as adverse.Since the correctness of those rulings and indeed the case itself turns upon the construction given the several deeds of partition, we will now examine and compare so much of the language contained in them as is material to this inquiry.

A recital in the deed from Louisa Schmidt, trustee, and her husband, for 18 acres, to Gustave contains this language:

"And whereas the said Gustave Schmidt, her son, has paid his one-seventh part, the sum of one hundred and thirty three dollars ($133.00) and the said Louisa Schmidt desires to convey said 18 acres hereinafter particularly described to said Gustave Schmidt clear of her life estate and all claims and incumbrances whatsoever, the mortgage therein mentioned having been paid and released, the judgment paid and satisfied, and the other debt which was due said Louisa Schmidt having also been paid as to said Gustave Schmidt's share."

The recital in the deed conveying 16.6 acres...