Smith v. Crandall

• Decision Date: 14 January 1864
• Citation: 20 Md. 482
• Parties: AUGUSTINE SMITH v. MARGARET A. CRANDALL & RICHARD H. CRANDALL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

20 Md. 482

AUGUSTINE SMITH v. MARGARET A. CRANDALL & RICHARD H. CRANDALL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

January 14, 1864

APPEAL from the Equity side of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County:

The bill in this case was filed by the appellant on the equity side of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, against Richard Crandall, on the 14th of April 1857. The defendant having died during the pendency of the suit, the appellees as his devisees, were made parties.

The bill seeks to compel the specific execution of a parol agreement made between Smith and Richard Crandall, for the conveyance by the latter of a parcel of land to him. It charges, that about the last of October 1846, the complainant contracted to purchase from John W. Chew and others, a parcel of land belonging to them, containing about ninety-six acres lying in the swamp of Anne Aundel County, for the sum of $800; that not having the money at hand to pay for the land he applied to Richard Crandall to lend him the money; and it was then agreed between them, that Crandall was to lend the money to be paid to the Chews for the said land by the complainant, and would allow him twelve years for the repayment, he paying the interest in the mean time; and by way of securing the loan to Crandall, the complainant agreed that the land should be conveyed to Crandall by the Chews, and that he should reconvey it to the complainant after the repayment of the loan and interest that in conformity with and in pursuance of this agreement, he obtained the sum of $800 so loaned him by Crandall, and paid it to the Chews for the land, and procured from them a conveyance of the land to Richard Crandall, but he avers, that this conveyance was only made by way of security for the loan, upon the express condition, that Crandall would receive the money with interest from the complainant within twelve years, and upon the receipt thereof, would reconvey the land to him; that the Chews placed the complainant in possession of the land immediately upon his payment of the purchase money, and that he has ever since been in possession of it, claiming it as his own, and in all respects exercising rights of ownership over it; that when he took possession, it was of a small value and unproductive, but that under his care it has more than doubled in value; that he has built an addition to the dwelling and all necessary out-buildings on it at his own expense, and laid out large sums in clover seed, & c., on the land; that for seven years after the purchase he continued to pay Crandall sums of money on account of the interest due him on the $800 according to the contract, and took his receipts for these payments, during all this time feeling the greatest confidence in the integrity and friendly disposition of Crandall, and remembering that the deed was only made to Crandall at his own suggestion to save the expense of a mortgage, he fully believed that he intended to abide by the agreement, and would each year receive as large a payment on account of the interest and principal, as the complainant might be able to pay, until the expiration of twelve years, when the balance was to be paid; that in the latter part of 1857, he went to Crandall and offered him the interest due, and a payment on account of the principal, and then for the first time learned that Crandall intended to claim the ownership of the land, or some interest in it different from that reserved by the agreement; that he afterwards sent money to Crandall to be paid on the land, but he refused to receive it, saying that the land had increased in value since he lent the money, and he intended to hold it as his own; and that he is informed that Crandall has recently advertised it for sale as his own property, and he believes he would have attempted to sell it, except for a publication by the complainant warning persons against buying from Crandall. The bill then charges that Crandall's claim is fraudulent and unjust, that he still refuses to receive the interest or principal of the said loan, but claims the land as owner, and he fears that he may again attempt to sell it unless restrained, & c.; and further charges that the complainant is anxious to pay the balance of the loan remaining due, and to obtain a reconveyance from Crandall, but that he is without remedy, except, & c.

The prayer of the bill is, that the Court may decree a specific execution of the said contract, that the deed may be corrected so as to conform to the intention of the parties, that Crandall may be compelled to convey the land to the complainant upon the payment of the balance due, and may be enjoined from attempting to sell the land or interfere with the complainant's possession, until the further order of the Court, and that he may have further relief, & c.

Richard Crandall answered the bill, denying the alleged contract, and charging that he purchased the land for his own use and received the deed in the ordinary manner, that he always regarded the complainant as his tenant on the property and that the repairs spoken of in the bill, were made by him as such. He then pleads the statute of frauds in bar of the alleged parol contract.

After filing his answer Richard Crandall died, leaving a will, by which his real estate was devised to his wife Margaret A. Crandall, for her life, and at her death to his nephew Richard Crandall, a minor, and the suit was revived as against these parties.

Margaret A. Crandall then filed her answer, denying all the material allegations of the bill, and pleading and relying upon the statute of frauds, in the same language as the answer of her husband, in bar to the claim of the claimant as insisted upon in his said bill.

The answer of the infant was taken by guardian, denying the matters charged in the bill. A commission was then issued, under which testimony was taken on both sides.

The deed for the land from the Chews to Richard Crandall, dated the 10th of November 1846, is an absolute deed.

John W. Chew, one of the grantors in this deed, testified that he represented the different parties in bargaining for the sale of this land; that he sold it to Smith, the complainant, for the sum specified in the deed, Smith stating at the time of sale, that Crandall would pay the amount of the purchase money, and that he, Smith, would pay Crandall back at his own convenience; that deponent asked Smith whose name should be inserted in the deed as purchaser, and he said, that although the land was intended for himself, that inasmuch as Crandall was to pay for it in the first instance, it would, perhaps, please him, Crandall, to have a deed in his own name, and the deed was drawn and executed according to this instruction; that after the execution of the deed, the deponent rode with it to Smith, who accompanied him to Crandall's, when the purchase money was paid by Crandall and the deed delivered to him; that Smith has been living on the land since the execution of the deed, prior to that time there was a negro tenant on the land; and that there was nothing said by Crandall with regard to the purchase of the land.

An exception was filed by the defendant to so much of the testimony of this witness as relates to the declaration of the complainant himself, in reference to the contract for the purchase of this land; and also, to such testimony of other witnesses who testified as to their understanding, independent of their knowledge of facts, of any contract subsisting between the parties to this suit.

William H. Peake testified that he had a conversation with Crandall with regard to the purchase money of this land, in which he understood Crandall to say, that Smith purchased the property, and that he, Crandall, had advanced the purchase money to pay for it, and that if Smith paid him the interest of the purchase money, it was all he desired, until he, Smith, could repay him the principal; that this conversation took place after Smith was in possession of the property; that the Chews owned the land when deponent first saw it, and after then it was owned by Smith; that there were some improvements made upon the property, and some repairs on the dwelling house by Smith; that he thinks ten dollars per acre might be considered a high price for the land at the time the Chews sold it, but it is worth more now; that he supposes it would bring about fifteen or twenty dollars per acre; that he thinks so on account of the increased value of land generally, and of Smith's improvement of this land; but that he does not know to what extent Smith has improved it. This witness further stated on cross-examination, that no particular time was specified by Crandall in which Smith was to repay the purchase money.

James Deal, of Martin, testified that the land was owned by the Chews before it came into the possession of Smith; that Crandall told deponent he was going to purchase the land for Smith; that Smith had claimed the land from the time of the sale by the Chews; that he lived on it, logs were brought on it, the land was limed and house repaired; that he thinks the land worth a third more than it was at the time of the sale, and he attributes its increased value to the improvements and general rise in the price of land.

Thomas N. Weems testified as follows: Smith took possession of the land after the sale by the Chews, and lived on it, except one year, when he rented it to one Rogers, and Rogers called on witness to act with one Simmonds, as arbitrators, to apportion the rent between him, Rogers, and Smith. Simmonds was appointed by Smith, and deponent by Rogers, and they apportioned the rent between them. Deponent thinks Smith paid a high price for the land at the time he purchased; the land was very poor, and deponent did not consider...