Snyder v. Snyder

• Decision Date: 25 March 1879
• Citation: 51 Md. 77
• Parties: ANN M. SNYDER, Executrix of OLIVER P. SNYDER, deceased v. WILLIAM J. SNYDER.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

51 Md. 77

ANN M. SNYDER, Executrix of OLIVER P. SNYDER, deceased v. WILLIAM J. SNYDER.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 25, 1879

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Frederick County, in Equity.

The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., MILLER, ALVEY and ROBINSON, J.

William P. Maulsby, Jr., for the appellant.

J E. R. Wood, for the appellee.

BARTOL C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

On the 12th day of March, 1866, the appellee, with his wife executed a mortgage conveying to the appellant's testator a parcel of land containing 40 1/4 acres to secure the payment of $200, with interest from the date of the mortgage which sum is stated in the mortgage to be then due from the mortgagors to the mortgagee, and was payable in one year thereafter.

After the death of the mortgagee, the appellant, in pursuance of a power of sale in case of default, contained in the mortgage, proceeded to advertise the sale of the property in September, 1876.

Whereupon the appellee filed his bill of complaint praying that the appellant be enjoined from selling the property, and that she be required to release the mortgage, and for general relief.

The bill alleges that "the mortgage has been fully paid and satisfied by the complainant, and the said Oliver P. Snyder repeatedly in his life-time promised to release the same, on the records, which he failed to do, and which his executrix has failed, or refused to do since his death."

The appellant in her answer states upon information and belief, that no part of the mortgage debt was paid to her testator in his life-time, and that he never promised to release the same; and avers that no part thereof has been paid to her; that she has never been requested by William J. Snyder, or by any one in his behalf, to release the same, and that the same is a valid and subsisting claim and lien against the property therein described.

The bill does not charge that there was any fraud on the part of the appellant's testator in obtaining the mortgage, nor is it averred that the mortgage debt was not actually due and owing at the time the paper was executed, the only ground for relief stated in the bill is that the mortgage debt has been paid.

To support this averment, three witnesses were produced by the complainant: Jacob G. Wood, Thomas U. Lease and Elias Mount.

Lease and Mount testify to certain declarations made by O. P. Snyder, soon after the mortgage was executed, to the effect that William J. Snyder owed him nothing at the time, but was indebted to several other persons, and to prevent his creditors from selling his property, and to secure him a home the mortgage was executed, and that the sum of $200 mentioned therein as the consideration, was handed by him, the mortgagee, to the mortgagor at the time the paper was delivered, and was immediately handed back.

Wood, the other witness, states that he was a constable and had in hand certain judgments against William J. Snyder in January, 1866, and was about to seize and sell his property; these judgments were paid or satisfied by O. P. Snyder; that "the mortgage was taken after the payment of the judgments, because there were other claims against William J. Snyder, and they did not want to sell him out nor did I."

The effect of this witness' testimony is to show that, while the judgments mentioned were paid by O. P. Snyder, such payments were made out of funds or means belonging to, or supplied by William J. Snyder, and that O. P. Snyder admitted to the witness that the whole matter had been settled, that William J. Snyder owed him nothing and promised to return to William J. Snyder all the papers including the mortgage. According to Wood's testimony the mortgage was given to prevent other creditors of W. J. Snyder from selling his property.

The evidence of these three witnesses cannot be relied on to prove the mortgage debt had been paid, its effect is rather to prove that no mortgage debt ever existed; and that the mortgage was without any bona fide consideration, a mere colorable transaction made fraudulently to hinder and delay William J. Snyder's creditors.

This is the effect of the testimony produced by the complainant, if it be taken as true, so far from supporting the allegation made in the bill, it shows a case in which he was a party to the fraud, concocted with the mortgagee, and carried into execution for his own benefit, and being in pari delicto, he would not be entitled to relief in a Court of Equity upon his bill. Roman vs. Mali, 42 Md., 513.

But we do not accept this theory of the case; looking at the whole...