Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 H. & G. 323

Oehler v. Walker

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided June 15, 1828

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1828-06-15

<p>C and his wife, made a gift of a sum of money to J, their eldest son, which was deposited with W, who undertook the trust of purchasing a tract of land therewith for J’s use. In 1792, he purchased the land and took a conveyance to himself. J diet! without issue, under age, and his rights devolved on his brothers and sisters, the eldest of whom attained the age of 21 in 1805, and died during that year. In November 1815, the heirs of J, the cestui que trust in fee, filed their bill against ’he heirs of W, for 9 conveyance of the land in conformity with his undertaking — 'Held, (the trust having been fully established,) that the lapse of time, between the time of purchase and filing the bill, formed no bar to the proceedings.</p> <p>The cause, however, having been 12 years in the court, from its commence» ment to the final decree, and many of the parties on each side of the docket, having died during that period, the court, under the circumstances, determined to say nothing of the rents and profits received, or the improvements made by the trustee, (who was in possession for a part of the time,) or his representatives; but only to decree a conveyance in fee.</p> <p>The county court, as a court of equity, having expressed an opinion upon the law and facts in the cause, in favour of the complainants’ right; and as they were to be relieved, the only subject was, the extent of such relief. But as in the then stage of the cause, full justice could not be done, in order, therefore, that a final decision should be made— Ordered, that the auditor state an account between the parties, etc. Such account was stated by the auditor. After which that court overruled the opinion before expressed upon the law and facts, and dismissed the bill. On appeal, the appellate court examined the whole case, and decided that the decree dismissing the bill be reversed.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1938

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1828-06-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Earle, J.

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court. The testimony in this cause is entirely satisfactory to our minds, that the purchase made of the tract of land called Yielding Serry in 1792, by Sennet Walker, was for the benefit oí the family of the then proprietors of the estate. The purchase money was raised by a sale of Anne Carberry’s dower rights in the land called Ireland, and a gift made of it by her and her husband, Patrick Carberry, to their eldest son, James Carberry. As his, it was deposited in the summer of 1792, with Sennet Walker, who undertook the trust of purchasing in the land therewith for his use. It was purchased in by the trustee at the sheriff’s sale, the November following; and the executed trust resulted for the use of James Carberry, who thereby became the cestui que trust, in fee. He died under age and without issue, and his rights devolved on bis brothers and sister, the sons and daughter of Patrick Carberry and Ann Car-berry, afterwards Ann Thompson; the oldest of whom, Francis Nicholas Carberry, attained the age of twenty-one, in April 1805, and died in the month of August following. With these views of the facts before us we should think it is clear, that *332length of time forms no bar to the proceeding, and that the decree of St. Mary’s county court ought to be reversed.

¶2This case depended in the court below, from 1815 till the year 1827, during which period, death made many changes in the parties on each side the docket. For this reason we have determined to say nothing of the rents and profits of Yielding Berry, or of the repairs and improvements made thereon, and to decree only, that this tract shall be conveyed by the appellees to the appellants in fee simple.

¶3decree reversed, &c.

/2/hg/323 · .json · Public domain