Murray v. Kerney

• Decision Date: 26 April 1911
• Citation: Murray v. Kerney, 115 Md. 514, 81 A. 6 (Md. 1911)
• Parties: MURRAY et al. v. KERNEY.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

81 A. 6

115 Md. 514

MURRAY et al. v. KERNEY.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

April 26, 1911

Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; Alfred S. Niles, Judge.

Bill by John A. Kerney against James E. Murray and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Charles S. Hayden, for appellants.

C Alex. Fairbank, Jr., for appellee.

Argued before BOYD, C.J., and PEARCE, THOMAS, PATTISON, and URNER JJ.

PATTISON J.

In this case the appellee, plaintiff below, filed his bill alleging that he was the owner, in fee simple, of a lot of land in Baltimore city, situated at the corner formed by the Intersection of the west side of Central avenue and the southeast side of Gay street that he had acquired from one Jane J. Murray by deed dated September 13, 1905.

The bill alleges that Jane J. Murray acquired title to this property by written agreement executed on the 2d day of December, 1885, by the said Jane J. Murray and her three sisters, who were at the time owners of said lands as tenants in common. The agreement was executed and acknowledged by them with all the formalities required in the execution and acknowledgment of deeds, and was duly recorded, and is as follows: "We, the undersigned, daughters of the late Peter and Elizabeth Murray, named and subscribed to this instrument of writing, do enter into an agreement that for the benefit of each and all of them named and subscribed to this agreement and are now living in and owners jointly the property being their joint interest left them, Lucy A Murray, Ann Murray, Sarah A. Crawford and Jane J. Murray, as heirs of the above Peter and Elizabeth Murray, property situated on the southwest corner of Gay and Canal streets (now Central avenue) the object of this is that in case that if by death should take one of the parties, the other three sisters are the owners, and if two are taken by death, then the two remaining sisters are the owners, and if by death one of the two sisters is taken then the last surviving sister is the owner, and in order to carry faithfully this agreement we hereunto set our hands and seals and subscribe our names this second day of December, in the year eighteen hundred and eighty five." The bill further alleges that the three sisters all died in the lifetime of Jane J. Murray, leaving her surviving them, the owner, as it alleges, of said property under and by virtue of said agreement, and that she died on the 26th of January, 1908. The bill also alleges that said property for a long time prior to the acquisition of it by the plaintiff was occupied by him and was in his possession at the time of the filing of the bill; that at the time of the death of the said Jane J. Murray she was seised of the property adjoining the property so acquired by him, which was also embraced in the property mentioned and described in the agreement above mentioned, signed by the said Jane J. Murray and her sisters aforesaid, and which her heirs, after her death, agreed to sell to the North Gay Street Permanent Building & Loan Association of Baltimore City, but, upon examination, the purchaser was not satisfied with the title of Jane J. Murray thereto, its objection being based upon the sufficiency of the agreement above given to pass title to her in said lands, and proceedings were instituted in the circuit court for Baltimore city "for the sale of said property and the ratification of the contract of sale to the said corporation, which proceedings have long since been completed and the title of said adjoining property conveyed to the said corporation."

As the legal sufficiency of the title of Jane J. Murray in and to the lands sold as aforesaid had been questioned, the plaintiff thought it best, as he alleges, to have executed to him by the heirs of Jane J. Murray a confirmatory deed for the property so conveyed unto him by her as aforesaid. To this end he called upon the heirs to execute the confirmatory deed, and all of them executed the same except the defendants, who refused to do so. It was then that he determined to file the bill asking the court, as he did, to construe said agreement, and by its decree "remove any cloud which might exist or be supposed to exist" upon his title to said lands. The defendants Mary J. Murray and William A. Murray answered, stating that as to the construction of the paper writing or agreement mentioned in the bill, and as to the relief prayed therein, they consented to and desired that the court should pass such decree as to it might seem just and proper in the premises. The other defendants, James E. Murray and Thomas F. Murray, also answered, neither admitting nor denying the things alleged in the bill, but requiring proof thereof. To these answers the general replication...