Shriver v. Seiss

• Decision Date: 28 June 1878
• Citation: Shriver v. Seiss, 49 Md. 384 (Md. 1878)
• Parties: SARAH B. SHRIVER and Joseph Shriver, Jr., by Robert Shriver, His Next Friend v. J. FRANK SEISS, Horace Resley, James H. Hoblitzell and E. K. Hyndman.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

49 Md. 384

SARAH B. SHRIVER and Joseph Shriver, Jr., by Robert Shriver, His Next Friend v. J. FRANK SEISS, Horace Resley, James H. Hoblitzell and E. K. Hyndman.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 28, 1878

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Garrett County, in Equity.

The bill in this case was filed by Charles C. Shriver against the appellees. The nature of the case is stated in the opinion of the court. During the pendency of the suit the complainant died, and his widow and infant child were made complainants in his place; and they are the appellants in this case, the court below, (Pearre, J.,) having passed a decree dismissing the bill.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., STEWART, BOWIE, ALVEY and ROBINSON, JJ.

Ferdinand Williams, for the appellants.

J H. Gordon, for the appellees.

Bowie J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The appeal in this case is taken from a decree of the Circuit Court for Garrett County, sitting as a court of equity dismissing the bill filed by Charles C. Shriver, in his lifetime, with costs.

The object of the bill was to obtain a decree to set aside a certain deed therein mentioned and for the specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale of certain lands by the appellee, J. Frank Seiss, to the complainant and for a good and sufficient deed for said tract of land, and for other and further relief.

The bill alleged in substance that on the 14th of October, 1874, the complainant entered into a contract in writing with J. Frank Seiss, (one of the appellees,) for the purchase of a tract of land lying in Garrett County, known as "Pretty Prospect," as per exhibit A, wherein the said Seiss bound himself to convey to the complainant the said land free from encumbrances, on certain conditions therein specified. That in pursuance of said contract and the demand of Seiss, he made certain payments in full of the cash payments to be made under said contract, and was always ready and willing to execute the mortgage to secure the deferred payments as required by the contract. In consequence of the absence of Seiss, some delay was occasioned in completing the transfer of said property by deed and mortgage.

That on or about the 26th of February, 1875, the complainant and wife executed a mortgage on said tract of land agreeably to the contract, and the complainant was about to carry it to Baltimore (where Seiss then resided) to deliver it, when he heard Seiss would be in Cumberland in a few days.

The bill further charges that on the 4th of March following he met Seiss, in company with the other appellees Resley, Hoblitzell and Hyndman, in Cumberland, and then informed them that he had purchased "Pretty Prospect" from Seiss, whereupon they produced a deed purporting to be a conveyance of the same from Seiss and wife to Resley, Hoblitzell and Hyndman. The complainant charges that Seiss fraudulently conveyed the said land to his co-appellees, in violation of his contract to convey the same to the complainant.

That the said Hoblitzell, Resley and Hyndman had notice of the contract between Seiss and himself before the execution of said deed by Seiss to them, and the said conveyance was a gross fraud upon the complainant.

The bill charges that the complainant has performed all the requirements of said contract on his part to be performed, but that the said Seiss refuses to make a conveyance of the land to the complainant. The bill prays that the said Seiss, Hoblitzell, Resley and Hyndman may answer the premises, and that the deed from Seiss to them be declared void and set aside, and a decree for specific performance against Seiss.

The appellees, Hoblitzell, Resley and Hyndman answered the bill and admitting they had purchased of Seiss the land in question for a valuable consideration which was paid, and that the same had been conveyed to them by Seiss, denied all fraud and averred they were bona fide purchasers without notice, at the time of the purchase and at the time of the execution and delivery of the deed; but admit that after the deed had been executed and delivered to them, the complainant informed them of his contract, and they told him that he was too late...