Stockett v. Goodman

• Decision Date: 13 June 1877
• Citation: 47 Md. 54
• Parties: FRANK H. STOCKETT v. REBECCA R. GOODMAN, Administratrix of WILLIAM R. GOODMAN.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

47 Md. 54

FRANK H. STOCKETT v. REBECCA R. GOODMAN, Administratrix of WILLIAM R. GOODMAN.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 13, 1877

CONSTRUCTION OF DEEDS.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, in Equity.

In April, 1874, the appellee filed on the equity side of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County her bill of complaint claiming that as administratrix of William R. Goodman she was entitled to the foreclosure of certain mortgages executed by the appellant during the life-time of the deceased.

The bill alleged, first--that the appellant being indebted to Wm R. Goodman in the sum of seven thousand dollars, in March 1867, gave him a mortgage on certain real estate, to secure payment of the debt, (it being provided in the mortgage that if on or before the sixth day of March, 1872, the said sum of seven thousand dollars, and interest thereon semi-annually from the date of said mortgage, should be paid by the appellant, his administrators, & c., the mortgage should be void,) and that at the time of filing the bill no part of the said sum had been paid; secondly--that the appellant was also indebted to Wm. R. Goodman in the sum of three thousand dollars, by virtue of the assignment of a mortgage from Thomas V. Brundige, executor of W. F. Worthington, to said Wm. R. Goodman, in his life-time, and that no part of said sum had ever been paid.

Subsequently the appellee filed an amended bill, in which she alleged that the aforesaid three thousand dollar mortgage was given by Stockett to Worthington as a security for the unpaid purchase money on the real estate conveyed by Worthington to Stockett and she averred that this constituted a lien on the property and that the assignment of the mortgage to Wm. R. Goodman was an assignment of the said lien, as the vendor's lien, to the said Goodman, and was so held by her as administratrix.

The appellant, in his answer, admitted the execution of both of the aforesaid mortgages, but denied that the one for three thousand dollars had been given as security for unpaid purchase money, and claimed that no vendor's lien was conveyed or made by said mortgage.

He further alleged that as to a certain portion of the land, of which each mortgage conveyed a part, he had only the reversion or remainder in fee after the expiration of a life estate therein limited, by the will of Lewis Neth, Jr., to his widow, Harriet Neth, who afterwards became the wife of Wm. S. McPherson; and he claimed that under no decree for the sale of said parcel of land, could a greater estate be sold than such reversion or remainder.

The appellant also averred in his answer that after the execution of the mortgage to Worthington, which covered the whole of the real estate conveyed to him by Worthington, and before the execution of the mortgage to Goodman, he conveyed to a certain John Wolf a part of said real estate, which was specially excepted from the mortgage to said Goodman; and the appellant contended that the said parcel of land could not be decreed to be sold except only in the event that the residue of the real estate embraced in the mortgage to Worthington should prove inadequate on a sale thereof to pay the debt and interest due, and secured by said mortgage.

On the 13th of April, 1875, the appellant, for the purposes named in the deed to them, conveyed all his property to Wm. H. Tuck and Wm. T. Iglehart in trust. On the 8th of February, 1876, these trustees filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, stating that in the execution of the mortgages by the appellant, his wife had never joined, and claimed that her contingent rights of dower in the real estate had not been conveyed by the said mortgages, but that as she had united with her husband, the appellant, in the deed of trust, such contingent right did pass to them for the purposes of said trust. They further stated that the life estate of Mrs. McPherson in the mortgaged property had been leased to the appellant by her after the date of the mortgages, and claimed that as this life estate passed to them by virtue of the deed of trust, it could not be sold or its rights be impaired under or by said mortgages.

By the said deed of trust it was provided that if the holders of the mortgages would consent that the property should be sold by the trustees, under the deed of trust, then that the net proceeds of the sale of the whole fee-simple estate, including the contingent right of dower and the leasehold estate, should be applied, in the first place, to the payment in full of the said mortgaged debts.

The petitioners asked to be made parties to the suit, and that the complainant might be required to accept or refuse the above mentioned provision in the said deed of trust, and that they, (the petitioners,) might have such other relief, &c.

The petition was refused, and on the 4th day of May, 1876, a decree was passed, whereby it was ordered that unless the said Frank H. Stockett shall, on or before the 5th day of June next, pay or bring into Court to be paid unto the complainant, the sum of ten thousand seven hundred and seventy...