Dulaney v. Devries

Burke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County dismissing the bill of the appellants which sought to have the contract alleged in the bill recognized as a valid and subsisting obligation, and to have the personal estate of Samuel K. George Devries, deceased, applied to the payment of a debt which it is alleged was due under the said contract by the deceased to the plaintiffs, and that the interest of said deceased in certain real estate mentioned in the bill might be sold, and the proceeds thereof applied to the payment of so much of said debt as might remain unsatisfied after the application of said personal estate to the payment of said debt. The debt alleged to be due by the deceased to the plaintiffs, as of the 6th day of February, 1904, is $17,290.83. The position of the plaintiffs is that the contract set forth in the bill should be treated as an equitable lien upon the real and personal property of the deceased therein mentioned, and that the Court should recognize and enforce said contract by granting the specific relief sought by the bill. ³⁵¹ A brief statement of some of the more prominent facts and circumstances in the history of events which gave rise to this litigation would make more easy the decision of the issues raised by the pleadings.

William Devries, of Baltimore City, died in November, 1877. At the time of his death he was the head of the firm of William Devries & Company, a large and successful dry goods firm, whose place of business was located on Baltimore street. . The members of this firm consisted of himself, William R. Devries, a son, and Christian Devries. William Devries left surviving him six children, three sons and three daughters, who were his only heirs-at-law and next of kin.

His sons were William R. Devries, Samuel K. George Devries, and Henry A. Devries. His daughters (using their married names) were Grace G. Tuck, Belle D. Goodwin, and Eliza Boynton. Samuel K. George Devries and William R. Devries died before the institution of this suit. William R. Devries left surviving him three children, who were made defendants to the bill of complaint, and whose names are Lydia Whitridge, Mary Frick, and William Devries.

Henry A. Devries, the only surviving son of William Devries, is made a party defendant as the administrator of Samuel K. George Devries. William Devries died intestate, seized and possessed of a large real and personal estate situated in Baltimore City and Baltimore County. Letters of administration upon his estate were granted to Christian Devries, who accounted for and distributed the personal estate in the Orphans’ Court for Baltimore County, and who also as trustee, appointed under appropriate equity proceedings, sold all the real estate of said deceased, except the property known as "The Pill Box Farm” located in Baltimore County. Shortly after the death of William Devries, Samuel K. George Devries was, by an inquisition had in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, found to be a non compos mentis, ³⁵² and by an order of that Court, passed on the 17th day of December, 1877, Christian Devries and Henry A. Devries, were appointed committee of the person and trustees of the estate of said lunatic.

They each qualified under their appointment, and assumed the discharge of the trust. Samuel K. George Devries was a member of the firm of Devries, Young & Company. Upon their qualification as committee and trustees of said lunatic, it was agreed between them that Henry A. Devries should look after the personal wants and comfort of said lunatic, and that Christian Devries should have entire charge of his property and estate, and attend to the investment of all funds of the lunatic coming into their hands as trustees. A large estate, to which Samuel K. George Devries was entitled from the estate of his father and as a member of the firm of Devries, Young & Company, passed into the hands of his trustees.

It appears from the “Plaintiff’s Exhibit X,”- that on June the first, 1884, the net balance which should have been in the hands of the trustees of the lunatic on that date was $60,504.82.' Subsequently, to-wit, in 1886, the warehouse property belonging to the estate of William Devries was sold, and the share of the lunatic in the net proceeds of sale was $14,004.20. In 1895 the property of William Devries located on Charles street was sold, and the share of the lunatic was ascertained by the auditor’s account to be $2,274.73. In addition thereto there was to the credit of the lunatic in the Eutaw Savings Bank the sum of $949. Allowing $6,000, a most liberal allowance, for the maintenance of the lunatic from June the 1st, 1884, to April the 1st, 1887, the date when the first charge on the account sought to be recovered in this case was made, there ought to have been in the hands of the trustees, as principal, belonging to the estate of Samuel K. George Devries at the time the alleged contract was entered into, the sum of $68,509.02.

But the bill alleges “that in of about the year 1887 practically the only property or estate then belonging to, or owned ³⁵³ by said lunatic consisted of the right” and interest of the said lunatic, as one of the heirs-at-law and distributees of his said deceased father, in and. to certain real and personal property, being a part of the estate of his said father ; said property .consisting of 28 shares of the capital stock of the Peabody Heights Company, a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Maryland, and a certain tract or parcel of land, containing 198 acres, more or less. The interest of said lunatic in said real and personal property being a ,one undivided one-sixth interest therein.” What had become of the large amount of money which the testimony shows to have passed into the hands of the trustees ? How had it been dissipated and lost ? An examination of the evidence will disclose a most lamentable case of mismanagement of the trust funds, and an utter disregard of duty on the part of Christian Devries, and at the same time will aid us in fixing the value of his testimony in support of the contract alleged in the bill.

Upon the dissolution of the old firm of William Devries & Company, in 1877, by the death of William Devries a new partnership was formed, trading under the old firm name of William Devries & Company, to carry on the business in which the former firm had been engaged. This partnership was subsequently renewed. It was composed of Christian Devries, and the five children of William Devries, deceased, viz. : William R. Devries, Henry A. Devries, Mrs. Tuck, Mrs. Goodwin and Mrs. Boynton. In 1882 Christian Devries formed a partnership with Mrs. Minnie Vogeler to carry on the business of manufacturing and selling proprietary medicines, among which was St. Jacob’s Oil.

In this partnership the members of the firm of William Devries & Company acquired a three-fifths interest in the profits, the other two-fifths being the property of Mrs. Vogeler. The interest of the members of the firm of William Devries & Company in the profits of the Charles A. Vogeler Company being in the same proportion as their shares in the ³⁵⁴ firm of William Devries*& Company, that is to say, thirty per cent to William R, Devries, thirty per cent to Christian Devries, and ten per cent each to Henry A. Devries, Mr?. Tuck, Mrs. Goodwin, and Mrs. Boynton. Christian Devries was the general managing partner in the Vogeler Company, which did a large and profitable business for a number of years, but finally became embarrassed and made a deed of trust for the benefit of creditors on the i8th day of December, 1899.

The firm of William Devries & Company ceased to do business in 1884, at which time the testimony shows it to have been insolvent. The record shows that the children of William Devries had the most implicit confidence in the integrity and business capacity of Christian Devries. He was a man of large and varied business experience, and they looked to him for guidance and advice in business matters. Mrs. Goodwin in her testimony said: “We look to Mr. Christian Devries for everything, and consulted him about the most minute details of our living,” and to the same effect is the testimony of Mrs. Tuck.

Upon the failure of the Vogeler Company there was found upon its books the account which is the subject of this suit of loans and advances made for the support and maintenance of Samuel K. George Devries, and it was also discovered that practically the whole estate of the lunatic, except the small portion thereof mentioned in the bill had been loaned by Chrstian Devries, as trustee; without authority, to the firm of William Devries & Company, and had been lost, or had been applied by him .to the payment of the debts of the firm. This suit was not brought until more than three years after the failure of the Vogeler Company, and not until after the death of William R. Devries, who would have been a most important witness as to all the transactions in connection with the contract sought to be enforced in this case. We will now state such material allegations of the bill as may be necessary to a proper disposition of the case. It alleges the appointment and qualification of' the plaintiffs as the ³⁵⁵ trustees of the Vogeler Company; that it became the duty of the plaintiffs under their appointment to collect and reduce to money all debts due to the Vogeler Company; it alleges the proceedings by which Samuel K. George Devries was adjudged to be a lunatic, and the appointment and qualification of Christian Devries and Henry A. Devries as committee and trustees; that said committee and trustees maintained and sup ■ ported said lunatic at an asylum for the insane from 1877 until 1887, during which period they paid the necessary and reasonable expenses of his maintenance and clothing; that the estate of the lunatic consisted in a large part of his interest in the estate of his deceased father.

It then alleges “that the expenses so incurred and paid by said committee and trustees, during the period aforesaid, exhausted the estate of said lunatic in the hands of said trustees,” and that about the year 1887 the only estate belonging to said lunatic was his undivided one-sixth interest in the “Pill Box Farm,” and in the 28 shares of the capital stock of the Peabody Heights Company, both of which properties were unproductive, but that neither of said properties could be sold without great loss and injury to the best interests of the lunatic. “That under these circumstances it was impossible for said trustees to maintain and .provide for said lunatic out of his own estate, or by a sale thereof in the usual course to provide sufficient means to maintain him except by the application of the principal of the proceeds of any such sale, or pledge, in consequence whereof it was apparent that the entire estate of said lunatic would soon be exhausted, and that said lunatic would be left without any means of support, and dependent upon public or private charity;” that as the best and most available means of preserving and protecting the estate and property of said lunatic, and at the same time of furnishing the present means of providing for his reasonable and necessary wants and comforts, and of keeping and maintaining said lunatic in the manner best adapted to his welfare and interest, the contract which forms the basis of this suit was entered into. That contract is stated in the bill in the following words: ³⁵⁶ “Said trustees in the discharge of the duties of their office, entered into an arrangement with the said Charles A. Vogeler "Company, in which company the defendants were-all largely interested, whereby the said Vogeler Company undertook and-agreed to advance and loan to the said lunatic, and to pay to the said trustees for his use and benefit, from time to time, as and when the same might be required for the'needs of said lunatic such sum or sums of money, as might be required for the maintenance of said lunatic and for providing him with reasonable necessaries and comforts, and to this end to pay over such sum or sums to said trustees to be so expended as aforesaid, and at such times and places as the said trustees should require. “And in consideration thereof, said trustees promised and agreed on behalf of said lunatic to repay any and all sums so advanced by said Charles A. Vogeler Company for the purpose aforesaid,