Numsen v. Lyon

• Citation: 39 A. 533,87 Md. 31
• Parties: NUMSEN et al. v. LYON.
• Decision Date: 04 January 1898
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

39 A. 533

87 Md. 31

NUMSEN et al.

v. LYON.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 4, 1898.

Appeal from circuit court of Baltimore city.

Samuel H. Lyon filed exceptions to the ratification of a sale of land to him by N. Gideon Numsen and William N. Numsen, trustees. Prom an order sustaining the exceptions and setting aside the sale, the trustees appeal. Affirmed.

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

Brown & Brune, for appellants.

McHenry Howard, for appellee.

BRYAN, J. Nathaniel and William Numsen, trustees under a will, sold to Samuel H. Lyon a tract of land in the city of Baltimore. It was agreed as a condition of the sale that the title to the property should be in fee simple and clear of all incumbrances. The purchaser, by appropriate proceedings, excepted in a court of equity to the ratification of the sale. His exceptions were sustained, and the sale set aside and annulled. The trustees appealed.

The title to a portion of the land was derived from a sale under the decree of a court of equity in the case of Busk and others against King, passed in April, 1805. The exceptions to the ratification of the sale allege that this title is defective. John King died seised in fee of this portion of the land, and it descended to his heirs subject to the dower of his widow. His children were four in number. After his death the widow intermarried with Thomas M. Busk, and in 1854 they conveyed all of her property, of every kind, to John W. Randolph upon certain trusts, which are not involved in any question in this case. In 1859, Caroline, one of his daughters, in contemplation of marriage with Edgar G. Taylor, conveyed, in conjunction with him, to the said John W. Randolph, all of her property, of every kind, upon the following trust, that is to say: "To permit and suffer the said Caroline King, during the term of her natural life, to take, hold, use, and enjoy the said property, estate, and effects, and the rents, issues, and profits thereof, for her sole and separate use, as a feme sole, and, at her death, for the use of any descendants she may have living at the time of her death, and, in default of such, for the use of her right heirs; with power, however, to the said Caroline King during her life to devise or bequeath the same, or convey the same, by deed, with the assent of the said trustee, testified by his uniting in the same deed." Years after the execution of these deeds a bill in equity was filed, which prayed a decree that the land should be sold for the purpose of partition. The parties to the suit were Caroline Busk, who had a second time become a widow; John W. Randolph, who is called, in the bill, "trustee as hereinafter mentioned"; Taylor and Caroline, his wife; the three remaining children of John King, deceased; and the husband of a married daughter. It was alleged in the bill of complaint that Mrs. Busk and her husband had executed the deed of trust already mentioned to John W. Randolph, but no allusion was made to the deed of trust executed by Taylor and His wife. A sale was decreed and made, and Mrs. Taylor received one-fourth of the proceeds of sale, after the deduction of the amount allotted to the widow in lieu of dower. By the terms of the deed to Randolph, Caroline Taylor had an equitable life estate, with a contingent remainder to such descendants as might be living at the time of her death, and, if none should then be living, a remainder was given to her right heirs. These remainders were legal, and not equitable. They depended on a contingency with a double aspect; that is, in the event of her leaving descendants living at the time of her death, their title then vested, but, in the other event of...