American National Bank v. Harlan

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit was instituted in the Circuit Court No. 2, of Baltimore City, by Enoch Harlan and Frank B. Jenkins, receivers of the Consumers’ Meat Company, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, to compel a transfer of certain leasehold property, standing in the name of Simon P. Schott, trustee, and alleged to be the property of the Consumers’ Meat Company. The appellant, the American National Bank, and Simon P. Schott, trustee, are parties to the proceedings, and by answer to the petition, set up the defence that the property was held as trustee, to secure to the American National Bank an indebtedness due it by the Consumers’ Meat Company, and not as trustee of the latter company. By an agreement the property was sold and the contest reserved to the fund arising from the sale.

There were two auditor’s accounts stated, distributing the fund. By account A the fund was distributed to all the creditors according to the contention of the appellees. The alternate account B distributes the entire fund to the appellant bank, as a prior creditor. And from the order of Court overruling exceptions to account A, and ratifying it, this appeal has been taken.

The main question presented for our consideration, and the one upon which the decision of this case turns, relates to the admissibility of certain parol testimony offered on the part of the appellant bank, to vary and control the three deeds filed as evidence in the case. , It appears from each of these deeds that the property described in them was ⁶⁷⁷ conveyed to “ Simon P. Schott, trustee for the Consumers’ Meat Company, of New Jersey, a body corporate, of the second part.” Nothing appears from the face of the deeds, other than what has been stated, indicating what duties are imposed upon the trustee, nor in what manner the trust should be administered. The consideration is set forth as having been paid by the trustee, and the property is conveyed to him, “to have and to hold, with its appurtenances, unto the said Simon P. Schott, trustee, for the Consumers’ Meat Company, a body corporate of the State of New Jersey.” Now the rule of law controlling the admission of parol testimony to vary or contradict deeds and written instruments has been settled by numerous decisions of this Court. McElderry v. Shipley, 2 Md. 25 ; Farrow v. Hayes, 51 Md. 498 . In Bladen v. Wells and wife, 30 Md. 581 , it is said : “No principle of law is more firmly settled than that which excludes parol evidence from being used either at law or equity for the purpose of contradicting, adding to, subtracting from or varying the terms of a deed, or controlling its legal operation and effect,