Wilson v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 26 May 1865
• Citation: Wilson v. Wilson, 23 Md. 162 (Md. 1865)
• Parties: ALEXANDER WILSON v. ISAAC N. WILSON and others.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

23 Md. 162

ALEXANDER WILSON v. ISAAC N. WILSON and others.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

May 26, 1865

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Baltimore city.

The bill in this case was filed on the 10th of January 1860, by the children of William H. Wilson, deceased, alleging that their father died intestate in the year 1845, seized and possessed of certain real estate in Cecil county, and of certain personal estate; that soon after his death, one Alexander Wilson, brother of the deceased, pretending great friendship and interest for his deceased brother's widow and infant children, (the eldest of whom was then about nine years of age,) procured the consent of the said widow that letters of administration on the personal estate of the said deceased should be issued to him, the said Alexander, and the said widow jointly, alleging that he would transact all the business and administer the said estate in the best manner possible for the interest of the widow and children, and without giving her any trouble; that he so inspired the said widow with trust and confidence in his promises and friendship, that she interfered but little in the administration, but left him to settle the estate in his own way; that the personal estate, although amply sufficient to pay all the debts of the deceased, was so administered by the said Alexander, that the records of the said administration showed an insufficiency for the payment of the debts, and that the said Alexander Wilson then procured a bill to be filed in the Court of Chancery for the sale of the said real estate by one of the creditors, and as your complainants were then minors, and mere children, their interests were neglected and sacrificed, and a decree obtained, and a sale of the said farm made under the same and the said Alexander Wilson became the purchaser thereof at and for the sum of $1,600, which sum, your complainants are informed and believe, was not one-fourth of the value of said farm; that the said Alexander Wilson, with a view to prevent competition in the bidding at the sale of the said farm falsely and fraudulently represented to the creditors and others that he was buying the said farm for the benefit of the said widow and children of his deceased brother, whose sympathy for said family withheld them from bidding for the same; that although the proceeds of the personal estate accounted for by the said administrators was not above one-half of the same, it, with the net proceeds of the sale of the real estate, amounted to something over $3,100, and the whole amount of debts proved against the estate were about $3,900, and yet the creditors of said estate were paid some at fifty cents in the dollar, and some at thirty-three and a third cents in the dollar; and so your complainants allege and charge that the said administrators fraudulently concealed and retained for their own benefit the funds of the personal estate aforesaid; and that the said Alexander Wilson procured the sale of the said real estate, and purchased the same for about one-fourth of its value, by fraudulent and false representations aforesaid; and that your complainants and also the creditors of the said deceased were defrauded by the means aforesaid. Your complainants therefore pray your honor to pass a decree in the premises, annulling and setting aside the decree and sale under which the said Alexander Wilson claims or pretends to claim the farm and premises hereinbefore mentioned, and that the said administrators, to wit, the said Alexander Wilson and Catharine Ann Wilson, may be compelled fully and faithfully to account for the whole of the personal estate of the said William H. Wilson, deceased and that subpœ nas be issued, & c.

The defendant, Alexander Wilson, demurred to this bill, assigning as reasons therefor: 1st. That the bill did not state a case entitling the complainants to the relief prayed for. 2nd. That the bill contained two distinct matters, thereby embarrassing his defence, and putting him to unnecessary trouble, delay and expense. 3rd. " That the complainants have united in their bill two entirely distinct and separate matters, having no proper and necessary connection; the one, wherein he is, with the said Catharine A. Wilson, called upon to settle their administration accounts, which were in the Orphans' Court of Cecil county; and the other a cause of action or demand, wherein this demurrant is sued for certain transactions respecting real estate, wherein the said Catharine A. Wilson is not alleged to have had any connection or concern with him, and which have no relation to said administration; that by such pleading of incongruous and unconnected matters, he will be seriously embarrassed in his defence, and will be subjected to the jurisdiction of this honorable tribunal, which is distant from his place of residence, whereas, respecting said land, this defendant can only be sued in the Circuit Court for Cecil county. Wherefore this demurrant says the said bill is multifarious, and as such he demurs to it. Wherefore," & c.

The Court below (KREBS, J.,) passed an order overruling this demurrer, and from that order the present appeal is taken.

The cause was argued before BOWIE, C. J., and BARTOL, GOLDSBOROUGH, COCHRAN and WEISEL, J. Alexander Evans and Levin Gale, for the appellant, argued:

I. That the bill is too vague and indefinite to entitle the complainants to relief; that it is a bill, in the nature of a bill of review, to reverse and annul the decree in the cause in the Court of Chancery, and is entirely insufficient as a bill of such a character, inasmuch as it does not name the parties to the said cause, nor so describe the cause that the same may be ascertained or identified, and is not filed in the same Court where said cause originated, and does not state whether said cause is still pending, or has been finally decided. Randall vs. Howard, 2 Black, 585. Story's Eq. Pl., secs. 403, 426, 428. In no sense can the Circuit Court of Baltimore county be considered the equal or superior of the Court of Chancery, so as to review its action, unless it be given by the Constitution of 1851, Art. 4, sec. 23, or by the Acts of 1853, ch. 123, and 1854, ch. 183.

II. That the bill is multifarious. White vs. White, 5 Gill, 359. Davoue vs. Fanning, 4 Johns. Ch. Rep., 199. Griffin vs. Merrill, 10 Md. Rep., 365. Ward vs. Duke Northumberland, 2 Anst., 468. Story's Eq. Pl., sec. 279.

III. That no proper case of jurisdiction is shewn against the defendant, Alexander Wilson.

William B. Bond and E. G. Kilbourn, for the appellees, argued:

1st. That the bill is multifarious, uniting two distinct matters having no necessary connection with each other, and embarrassing him in his defence; and

2nd. That the Circuit Court for Baltimore city, have no jurisdiction of the case, inasmuch as the residence of the appellant is in Cecil county.

1st. Of the objection of multifariousness. On a question of this kind, every case must depend in a great degree, upon the particular facts and circumstances of that case, for no definite and reliable rule on the subject exists. Whilst on the one hand, Courts of Equity will not and ought not to suffer a confused and indiscriminate mingling of facts and allegations in no material way connected, making it difficult and embarrassing to a defendant to ascertain what he is called on to answer; on the other hand, they will not compel a complainant to bring a multiplicity of suits, thereby increasing his costs and expenses, when full justice can be attained by one proceeding. Adams on Equity, 309 and 310, 60 Law Lib. Story's Eq. Pl., secs. 530, 539. Dunn vs. Cooper, 3 Md. Ch. Dec., 48.

In this case the defendants are called upon as administrators of William H. Wilson, to account in reference to the personal estate, and the allegation is, that by means of fraudulent concealment of the personal estate by them, Alexander Wilson was enabled (on a showing of a deficiency of that estate to pay the debts) to obtain a sale of the real estate, and so to perpetrate the fraud charged on him in the purchase of it. Here is not only a proper but necessary connection of the two acts of fraud. In fact, the single question presented in this case is, that a fraud has been perpetrated by the defendants and especially by Alexander Wilson, to possess himself of the property of his brother's children. The means are two-fold, but the end is single. It was impossible to state the means by which the fraud charged was accomplished, without referring to the settlement of the personal estate, because the creditors, in whose name the bill was filed, could not have procured a decree, except upon the allegations and shewing of deficiency of personal assets. It was a necessary part of the machinery by which the fraud was to be wrought out; and to charge the bill in this case with multifariousness, would simply be to assert that I have committed two acts of fraud to attain my purpose, but you shall not allege but one, for the demurrer admits the facts set forth in the bill to be true. But it will be said that the prayer of the bill...