Baltimore Humane Impartial Society & Aged Women's & Aged Men's Homes v. Marley

Bond, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Marley, the appellee, sued in equity for cancellation and rescission of a contract he had made with the appellant, called in the contract the Home, to become an inmate and receive care during* the remainder of his life, and for the re-delivery to him of a will he had made in favor of the Home, and money which he had transferred to it as required by his contract. There was a provision in the contract that within a probation period of six months either the Home or the inmate might terminate the contract without question, with a return to the inmate of the admission fee paid by him, less five dollars per week board for the length of his residence in the Home; and Marley, within six months of his admission, declared his election to terminate the contract and demanded a return of the money previously transferred. And this return having been refused by the Home, he filed his bill in equity.

The Home in its answer set up the additional facts that Marley had entered the Home with false representations as to the amount of his money, and at first had transferred only a small portion of it, concealing the remainder, and so attempting to gain the benefit of charitable care from the Home and at the same time to preserve his own independent resources; and that later, upon discovery by the Home of the attempt, Marley acknowledged his mistake in making it, and made the full transfer required; but that in a few days he changed his mind and resorted to the provision for termination of the contract as a further means of keeping his money. A demurrer by Marley to this answer was sustained, and the Home appeals from that ruling. ⁴⁸⁰ In the argument the Home contends that, in the first place, the hill has shown no ground for resorting to equity for the relief sought; then that there was no obligation under the contract to return the money transferred, especially under the additional circumstances shown in the answer;, and that it follows from these additional circumstances that if such a contract obligation might be found, Marley’s attempted concealment and fraud on the Home would dis-entitle him to the áid of a court of equity because he would not come to it with clean hands. The objection to the jurisdiction is based upon the general principle that the equity courts may be resorted to for cancellation or rescission of instruments only when some one of the peculiar grounds of equitable jurisdiction is involved or when there is for other reasons no adequate remedy at law for the relief needed, and based also upon the fact that an action for money had and received would be a complete remedy here for the return of money transferred to the Home if Marley is entitled to it. 2 Story, Equity Jurisprudence (14th Ed.), sec. 993; 2 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence, sec. 914; collection of decisions in note 11 L. R. A. 68; Lipson v. Evans, 133 Md. 370, 376 ; Hertle v. Schwarze, 3 Md. 366, 383 ; Wenstrom Motor Co. v. Purnell, 75 Md. 113, 119 ; Ranstead v. Allen, 85 Md. 482 ; Willson v. Williams, 106 Md. 657, 663 ; Coan v. Consol. Gas E. L. & P. Co., 126 Md. 506, 510 .

And it might be added, in support of the argument, that what Marley wants from the court in this case is not cancellation or rescission of his contract but performance of it in that part which provides for readjustment upon the exercise of the option to terminate it. Levin v. Goodman, 152 Md. 185 ; Johnson v. Evans, 8 Gill, 155 . But he seeks the additional remedy of a re-delivery of the will which he executed in favor of the Home and put in the hands of its officers. It seems quite likely that this, was done merely as a measure