Newbold v. Glenn
| Citation | 10 A. 242,67 Md. 489 |
| Parties | NEWBOLD v. GLENN AND ANOTHER. |
| Decision Date | 23 June 1887 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
Appeal from circuit court, Baltimore city.
Special case stated under the rules of equity practice.
John J. Dobler, for appellant.
John P. Poe, for appellees.
In pursuance of an ordinance of the mayor and city council of Baltimore, the "Trustees of the McDonough Educational Fund and Institute" bought of Jonathan Wolfenden a lot of ground in said city, as a site for the proposed McDonough Institute. The price paid was $11,675, and, after reciting the city ordinance, the deed from Wolfenden and wife conveyed the property therein described to the mayor and city council "in trust for the uses and purposes, and subject to the trusts, limitations, powers, and provisions imposed expressed, and declared in and by the ordinance." The trustees, in pursuance of an ordinance subsequently passed by the city authorities, sold at private sale the said lot of ground to William W. Glenn, and bought other property in the vicinity of Baltimore city, on which buildings were erected, and where the McDonough Institute has for some time been in practical operation. The sale to Glenn was made on the fifth May, 1869, and on his death the property was conveyed by the mayor and city council to John Glenn, trustee for the parties in interest.
This appeal is from a pro forma decree upon a special case stated, under the forty-seventh, forty-eighth, and forty-ninth general rules of equity practice; and the questions are (1) whether, under the deed from Wolfenden, the mayor and city council acquired an absolute fee-simple title in the property thereby conveyed; and (2) whether a valid fee-simple title passed to John Glenn under the deed from the mayor and city council.
1. By the deed from Wolfenden and wife the property is conveyed to the mayor and city council, and there are no words on the face of it indicating a purpose to limit or restrain in any manner the right of alienation on the part of the grantee. Nor do we find anything in the conveyance to justify the inference that the property was sold or conveyed on condition that it was to be used as a site for the McDonough Institute and, on the failure thus to use it, the title was to revert to the vendor. It was not conveyed in trust for such a use, and to and for no other use, intent, purpose or whatever, as in Reed v. Stouffer, 56 Md. 236; and if such had been the intention we must presume that it would have been expressed in clear and explicit terms, or in terms, at least, from which such intention...
To continue reading
Request your trial