Stoll v. Smith

• Citation: 98 A. 530,129 Md. 164
• Decision Date: 23 June 1916
• Docket Number: 36.
• Parties: STOLL v. SMITH et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

98 A. 530

129 Md. 164

STOLL v. SMITH et al.

No. 36.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 23, 1916

Appeal from Circuit Court, Anne Arundel County; Jas. R. Brashears Judge.

Bill for specific performance by Francis Smith, James Clinton Mewshaw and Dessie Estelle Mewshaw, his wife, against F Conrad Stoll. Decree for complainants, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before BOYD, C.J., and THOMAS, URNER, STOCKBRIDGE, and CONSTABLE, JJ.

Thomas Burling Hull, of Baltimore, for appellant. D. List Warner, of Baltimore (Benson & Karr and John D. Nock, all of Baltimore on the brief), for appellees.

STOCKBRIDGE J.

By the bill of complaint in this case the court was asked to specifically enforce a contract of sale for two acres of land in Anne Arundel county. The defendant answered and set up as the ground for defense that the appellees could not convey a good and merchantable title.

The land in question was part of a larger tract of 20 acres. This had been sold in December, 1830, by William Legg as trustee under a decree of a court of chancery to the predecessor in title of the vendors in the contract of sale, the appellees here, and he and his heirs have been in actual, continuous and exclusive possession of the property since that time--a period of more than 80 years.

The sale made by Legg, trustee, was duly reported to the circuit court for Anne Arundel county, and an order of ratification nisi duly passed. The docket entries of that court do not show any final ratification of the sale, and the proposed vendee under the contract refuses to carry out the sale, alleging this defect as a sufficient reason.

It is not understood as denied that if the sale of 1830 had been between individuals, the title of the appellees would be good by adverse possession, but it is urged that because of the fiduciary character in which Legg was acting when he made the sale, a different rule applies, and that no limitations can run as against a trustee. The case of Sharp St. Station v. Rother, 83 Md. 294, 34 A. 843, is relied on as sustaining this position. That case differs from the present in one important particular, which at once distinguishes it, namely, there was nothing to show the conditions under which the church entered into possession of the property, and whether or not there was a reverter if the lot was used for other than the purposes specified in the deed.

While at one time the objection now urged on behalf of the appellants would have been a valid one, the contrary has been the accepted rule ever since the decision of Lord Hardwicke in Llewellin v. Mackworth, 2 Equity Cases Abridged 579, and it has been held that an adverse possession sufficient to bar the legal estate of a trustee was also sufficient to bar the...