Owens v. Crow

• Decision Date: 03 July 1884
• Citation: 62 Md. 491
• Parties: SARAH OWENS, and IDA CROW in her own right v. IDA CROW, Executrix of JOHN T. CROW, EDWARD W. HUBARD, Executor of SUSAN W. CROW.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

62 Md. 491

SARAH OWENS, and IDA CROW in her own right v. IDA CROW, Executrix of JOHN T. CROW, EDWARD W. HUBARD, Executor of SUSAN W. CROW.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

July 3, 1884

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City.

This appeal was taken from the decree of the Court below dismissing the bill of the complainants with costs. The case is stated in the opinion of this Court.

The cause was argued before MILLER, YELLOTT, ROBINSON, IRVING RITCHIE, and BRYAN, J.

J J. Wade, for the appellants.

John T. Mason, R., and John Prentiss Poe, for the appellee, Edmund W. Hubard, executor of Susan W. Crow.

Isaac D. Jones, for the appellee, Ida Crow, executrix of John T. Crow.

BRYAN J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

On the eighth day of September, 1860, John T. Crow and Mary E. Crow, his wife, executed a deed, whereby they conveyed to Sarah Owens, all the property of every kind, which belonged to the said Mary E. Crow, in trust for the sole use and benefit of Ida Crow, the infant daughter of the grantors. The infant was, at that time, a little more than three years of age. Shortly after the execution of this deed Mrs. Crow died.

It does not appear that any of the property conveyed was real estate; it consisted of a leasehold interest in a house and lot in the City of Baltimore, and some household furniture, and three slaves, two women and a boy. Although Sarah Owens was named as trustee in the deed, no duties were imposed upon her, and no functions were to be performed by her. She held the dry legal estate, and the only effect of naming her in the deed was to enable her to hold it. The beneficiary, Ida Crow, was the real owner of the property, and the absolute legal estate would have been vested in her by operation of law, whenever, for any purpose, it was necessary that she should have it. The trustee could not hold the legal title as against her, or as against her guardian. As the trustee had no duties to perform, there was no purpose for which the trust could be continued in existence. The object of appointing the trustee was to enable her to receive the legal title to the property from the grantors, and as soon as this object was accomplished, there was no longer any reason for continuing the trust. "When a trust has been created in personalty, and all the purposes of the trust have ceased, or are at an end, the absolute estate is in the person entitled to the last use." Denton vs. Denton, 17 Md., 407. Miss Owens having no duties to perform in reference to the property, took no control over it, but it was managed and controlled by John T. Crow, the father, from the time of the execution of the deed until his death. He occupied the house a portion of the time, and for several years he rented it out, and received the rents; he held possession of the slaves until the emancipation in 1864, making use of their services as household servants; and he used the furniture in the house until he discontinued housekeeping, when he sold it. In all his transactions with reference to this property, Mr. Crow was acting for the benefit of his daughter Ida; in his dealings he sometimes described himself as "guardian," and sometimes as "guardian for the use of Ida Crow;" and he stated that the house was rented for her benefit. She was his only daughter, and his only child by her mother. She and Miss Owens lived in the same house with him until 1869, when Miss Ida was sent to boarding school by him. In all his intercourse with his daughter he shewed himself to be a fond and affectionate father, very solicitous for her welfare and happiness. It would be the grossest injustice to his memory to suppose that he was capable of making any adverse claim to her property, or that he was acting otherwise than in the capacity of her guardian, as he styled himself in his dealings with her property. On the contrary, as early as January, 1874, he made his last will and testament, by which he left her all his property, to the entire exclusion of a son by a former marriage; and we learn from the probate proceedings that he delivered the will to her in his life-time, and permitted it to remain until his death. He married a third wife on the 2nd of February, 1881, and died on the 23rd of March in the same year, leaving his will unrevoked.

This bill is filed for an account of the rents, hires and profits of the property embraced in the deed, and of the money collected by Crow in his life-time for the benefit of his daughter. Miss Crow attained the age of 21 years on the seventh day of May, 1878, and the bill was filed on the 13th of April, 1882, within the time of limitation fixed by the statute for proceedings against the estates of deceased persons. Miss Crow being in reality the owner of the property, both at law and equity, and Miss Owens being without title, estate or interest in the property, it is very clear that no plea of limitations could bar the right...