Maryland case law › Cissel v. Henderson

Cissel v. Henderson

88 Md. 574 (1898) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedBriscoe, J.✓ Good law
HoldingCissel, the holder of a promissory note for $25,000 executed by Cropley on August 1, 1890, and secured by a deed of trust on certain Montgomery County lands, sought an injunction to restrain Cropley's judgment creditors from selling at sheriff's sale a 37 3/4-acre tract that had…

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The object of the suit in this case was to obtain an injunction to restrain certain judgment creditors of the 575 appellee, Arthur B. Cropley, from selling at Sheriff’s sale a certain tract of land situate in Montgomery County and containing 3 7% acres, improved by a house and outbuildings. The bill also contains a prayer to reform a certain deed of trust dated the 1st day of August, 1890, from Cropley and wife in favor of the appellant, Cissel, so as to include the 37^2 acres of land, and to enjoin the appellee creditors from further proceedings. The case was submitted upon bill and exhibits, and from an order refusing the injunction, this appeal has been taken.

The facts of the case briefly stated are these: On the first day of August, 1890, the appellee, Cropley, being indebted to the appellant, George W. Cissel, executed and delivered to him a promissory note for the sum of $25,000, payable three years after date, at the bank of Riggs & Co., Washington, D. C. At the same time the note was secured by the execution of a trust deed to Messrs. Samuel Sewell Cissel, of Georgetown, D. C, and James B. Henderson, of Maryland, of certain lands in Montgomery County belonging to the appellee Cropley and particularly described in the deed of trust. Subsequently, there being a default in the payment of the note and interest, the land was sold by the trustees at public sale and the sale ratified by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, and in June, 1897, a deed was executed to the purchaser. This sale was subject, however, to a prior mortgage from the appellee, Cropley and wife, to the Maryland Life Insurance Company of Baltimore, and it appears that the proceeds of sale were insufficient to pay the amount due upon both the mortgage and the trust deed.

It further appears that subsequent to the execution of both the mortgage and deed of trust, certain creditors of the appellee, Cropley, obtained judgment in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County against him, and caused writs of fieri facias to be issued and laid upon “ all of those tracts, parts of tracts, pieces or parcels of land, situated, lying and being in the county of Montgomery in the State of Maryland, and being a part of a 576 tract of land called ‘ Carderock/ part of a tract called ‘ James Park ’ and part of a tract called ‘ Young Man’s Folly Resurveyed/ or by whatever name or names the same may be known or called, containing 37343 acres of land, more or less, and which was conveyed to the said Arthur B. Cropley, by Wm.

This is a preview of Cissel v. Henderson. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.