Reimler v. Pfingsten

• Decision Date: 23 November 1893
• Citation: 28 A. 24
• Parties: REIMLER et al. v. PFINGSTEN.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

28 A. 24

REIMLER et al.

v. PFINGSTEN.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 23, 1893.

Appeal from the circuit court of Baltimore city.

Bill by Gottlieb Reimler and others against Bertha C. Pfingsten to set aside a deed, and for the sale of certain property. From a decree setting aside the deeds and ordering a sale, but reserving to defendant a lien on the proceeds, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before ROBINSON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BRYAN, BRISCOE, McSHERRY, and FOWLER, JJ.

Ben. Kurtz and Jesse N. Bowen, for appellants.

Thos. G. Hayes, for appellee.

FOWLER, J. The question presented on this appeal is a plain one, having been virtually disposed of at the hearing. The appellee, Bertha C. Pfingsten, having advanced to her husband, William H. Pfingsten, some $1,500 to pay off a mortgage held by the Pennsylvania Avenue Building Association upon his promise to repay said sum to her, and he having failed so to do, he conveyed to one Gith certain leasehold property,—the same that had been mortgaged to the building association, and Gith conveyed the same to said Pfingsten and his wife, and the survivor of them. These conveyances were executed at a time when Pfingsten was in failing circumstances, and, a bill having been filed by the appellant, these deeds were set aside, and the property conveyed by them was ordered to be sold for the payment of Pfingsten's debts. The court below, however, upon the evidence before it, reserved to the appellee a lien on the proceeds of sale for the amount advanced by her to pay off the building association mortgage. We have examined the testimony, and are satisfied that the appellee loaned the money mentioned to her husband for the purpose of paying off said mortgage indebtedness, and that she made said loan upon the express promise of repayment. It is clear the transaction between herself and her husband was free from fraud, with no intention on her part, at least, of defrauding his subsisting creditors. Under such circumstances the appellee must, according to the plainest principles of justice and equity, be substituted for and have the right of the building association under the mortgage, which we have seen she paid off. The mortgage in question was a valid lien prior to the claims of the appellants, and the claim of the appellee was therefore properly recognized and protected by the court below. So we have held in two recent cases, Milholland v. Tiffany, 64 Md. 461, 2 Atl. 831; Cone v. Cross, 72 Md. 102, 19 AtL...