Thomas v. Standiford

Decision Date26 June 1878
Citation49 Md. 181
PartiesDAVID E. THOMAS and Others v. AMELIA E. STANDIFORD, By Her Husband and Next Friend, Edward P. Standiford.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, in Equity.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., STEWART, BRENT, ALVEY and ROBINSON, JJ.

John M. Carter and George G. Hooper, for the appellants.

If the resulting trust in favor of the wife be established, it is of course, a successful barrier to the execution of the appellant, David E. Thomas; but otherwise it is submitted that the employment of the wife's money in the building of the improvements can have no such effect, as the judgments became liens upon the property at the moment of Edward P Standiford's acquisition of the title. Heuisler v Nickum, 38 Md. 270; Murphy v. Cord, 12 G. & J 182; Keller v. Keller, 45 Md. 275.

A resulting trust cannot arise in the case of a lease, where the consideration is simply the payment in futuro of the rent reserved. The trust arises out of the circumstance that the money of the real, and not of the nominal purchaser, formed, at the time, the consideration of that purchase, and became converted into land. Hollida v. Shoop, 4 Md. 465; Keller v. Keller, 45 Md. 270; see also reservation in court's opinion, in Greer v. Baughman, 13 Md. 276.

But even if a resulting trust could arise in such a case as this, it is contended that the payment of the cost of the improvements subsequently erected, which must form the foundation of the trust, has not been made out by the plain, direct, unequivocal and convincing evidence that the case requires. On the contrary, the evidence of the appellee's witnesses herein is vague and self-contradictory. Keller v. Keller, 45 Md. 274; Greer v. Baughman, 13 Md. 257; Hollida v. Shoop, 4 Md. 474.

There can be no resulting trust herein, for the further reason that there has been such laches and acquiescence on the part of the appellee as to defeat her rights, in that when the lessor declined to make the lease in question to her, she acquiesced in its being made to her husband; in that it was not even suggested that it be made to him as her trustee; in that the assignment of it by her husband to her was not made until more than two months after he received it; and in that in the assignment there was inserted no recital of the trust now attempted to be set up as a consideration.

Samuel Snowden, for the appellee.

Brent J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The object of the bill in this case is to obtain an injunction, restraining the appellants and the sheriff of Baltimore County from selling under execution certain leasehold property, to satisfy judgments against the husband of the appellee.

The lot in question was leased by John Fox and wife, on the 5th of March, 1873, to Edward P. Standiford, for the period of ninety-nine years, the consideration being the payment of an annual rent of $32. The lease seems to have been signed at that date by the respective parties, but is not acknowledged until the 7th of April, following.

On the 23rd of the following June the lease was assigned by Standiford, for the consideration of five dollars, to his wife, Amelia E., and on the same day both the lease and assignment were deposited in the clerk's office for record.

The judgment of the appellant, Thomas, was obtained against Edward P. Standiford, on the 24th of August, 1869, and having been revived by scire facias, an execution was issued and levied upon the property in question, when further proceedings were restrained by injunction. Upon final hearing this injunction was made perpetual, and from this decree the present appeal is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Diven v. Sieling
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • April 6, 1933
    ...is the foundation of the trust, must be made out by plain, direct, and unequivocal evidence." Keller v. Keller, 45 Md. 269; Thomas v. Standiford, 49 Md. 181; Greer Baughman, 13 Md. 257. When the plaintiff relies upon mere parol evidence to establish the trust the "Court should view with the......
  • Hughes v. McDougall
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • November 23, 1922
    ...where he says, "The proof must be clear, direct and explicit." For this statement he cites, among other Maryland cases, that of Thomas v. Standiford, 49 Md. 181, the rule thus laid down has been undeviatingly followed in many cases since. Pickett v. Wadlow, 94 Md. 567, 51 A. 423; Miller v. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT