Shryock v. Morris

• Citation: 23 A. 68,75 Md. 72
• Parties: SHRYOCK v. MORRIS.
• Decision Date: 10 December 1891
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

23 A. 68

75 Md. 72

SHRYOCK v. MORRIS.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 10, 1891

Appeal from circuit court of Baltimore city.

Bill in equity by Joseph S. Morris against Thomas J. Shryock, asking that trust property be applied to the satisfaction of a judgment, and that a former decree be set aside. From the decree setting aside the former decree, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and ROBINSON, IRVING, MCSHERRY, and FOWLER, JJ.

Henry Stockbridge and John M. Carter, for appellant.

H W. Williams and N.W. Williams, for appellee.

ALVEY C.J.

The appeal in this case is from a decree of the circuit court of Baltimore city vacating and setting aside a previous decree of that court, made in a former separate proceeding, upon the ground of the want of jurisdiction in the court to pass such former decree. It appears from the record before us that the late Henry S. Shryock, who died in 1882, left a will, which was duly admitted to probate whereby he devised and bequeathed a large portion of his estate, consisting of freehold and leasehold estates, and of personal property generally, together with bonds, stocks, and other securities, in trust, for his children for life, with remainders and cross-remainders over to his grandchildren. William H. Shryock was one of the children of the testator; and, some time before the death of the latter, he made a deed to R. Fuller Shryock, another one of his sons, of a house and lot in Baltimore city, in trust for his son William H.; the trust being substantially similar to that declared in his will. In both the will and deed, power is given the trustees to sell and reinvest, from time to time, any or all of the trust property, and to change the character of the property as may be deemed judicious by the trustees. And by the deed the cestui que trust for life is authorized to dispose of the trust property by will, to his lineal descendants; and in both deed and will, in the event of failure of lawful issue of the cestui que trust for life, the property given to him is to revert to the estate of the deceased, Henry S. Shryock, to be disposed of as part of the residuum of his estate. The remainder to the child or children of William H. Shryock, under the will, is of the share of the annual income until the death of the last survivor of the children of the testator; at which point of time the residuum of the estate is to be divided among all the grandchildren of the testator "then living, together with the lawful issue of any deceased grandchild; the said grandchildren taking per capita and the issue of any deceased grandchild taking per stirpes. " William H. Shryock, still surviving, has but one child, Harry C. Shryock; but there are many other grandchildren of the testator in existence, children of other children of the testator. In 1885, certain judgments of the superior court and the court of common pleas of Baltimore city were recovered against Harry C. Shryock; and his father, William H. Shryock, became the assignee thereof. Upon these judgments the assignee procured writs of fi. fa. to issue, and to be levied upon all the right, title, claim, and interest of the judgment debtor in and to all the estate devised, bequeathed, and conveyed in trust by his grandfather as aforesaid; and the executions were returned unsatisfied. Upon this return to the executions the assignee of the judgments filed a bill in equity in the circuit court of Baltimore city, on the 22d of July, 1887, stating all the facts of the case, making the judgment debtor and the trustees parties defendants, and praying that a decree might be passed for the sale of Harry C. Shryock's right, title, and interest in all the estate of the late Henry S. Shryock, deceased, for the satisfaction and payment of the judgments held by the plaintiff as assignee, and for general relief. Copies of the judgments, the sheriff's levy and return on the executions, the deed of trust, and of the will of Henry S. Shryock, referred to in the bill, were all made exhibits. To this bill, all the defendants answered, admitting the allegations made in the bill, and submitting to such decree as the court might be authorized to make. On this bill, exhibits, and answers, the court, on the 22d of August, 1887, passed its decree, whereby it adjudged and determined "that all the right, title, interest, and estate of the defendant, Harry C. Shryock, in and to the property and estate devised and bequeathed to the Safe-Deposit & Trust Company of Baltimore, in trust and granted to R. Fuller Shryock, in trust, by Henry S. Shryock, deceased, by deed mentioned in the proceedings, be sold;" and the proceeds of sale were directed to be brought into court, to be distributed under its direction. A trustee was appointed to make sale; the sale was made and reported, and was finally ratified by the court, and a deed made to the purchaser by the trustee; and out of the proceeds of sale the judgments held by the plaintiff in that case, as assignee, were satisfied.

In September, 1886, the plaintiff in the present suit recovered judgment at law against Harry C. Shryock, and issued thereon a fi. fa., and had the same returned nulla bona. Thereupon, on the 31st of January, 1890, he filed the bill in this suit against the judgment debtor, and the assignee of the judgments in the former case, the purchaser at the trustee's sale under the decree in that case, and the trustees under the will and deed of Henry S. Shryock, deceased. In the bill it is alleged that the decree in the former case was passed without jurisdiction in the court to pass the same, and, if the court had jurisdiction, that the decree was obtained by fraud and collusion; and the relief prayed is that the decree, and all the proceedings, including the sale and conveyance, had and made in that case, be set aside and vacated, and the property, or rights therein, of the judgment debtor, be applied to the satisfaction of the judgment of the plaintiff. The defendants answered the bill, and denied the allegation of the want of jurisdiction in the court to pass the decree in the former case, and also positively denied the charge of fraud and collusion. There was no proof whatever offered to support the charge of fraud and collusion; but the court, acting on the alleged want of jurisdiction, as a preliminary ground, on the 3d of February, 1891, passed a decree whereby it vacated and set aside the decree in the former case, of the 22d of August, 1887, and all the proceedings had thereunder, as having been made and had without jurisdiction in the court to pass such decree. And upon vacating the decree the court proceeded to decree a sale of all the right, interest, and estate of the judgment debtor, as has been done in the former case.

The questions, therefore, on this appeal, are two First. Whether there was jurisdiction in the court to pass the decree vacated; and if the case did not fall within the ordinary...