Maryland case law › Dunnington v. Hubbard

Dunnington v. Hubbard

65 Md. 87 (1886) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: AffirmedBryan✓ Good law
HoldingThis case arose from a fraudulent conveyance of real property.

Bryan, J., after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the Court. Some of the facts in this case are involved in considerable obscurity. But it is very certain that a gross fraud has been perpetrated by one John William Willson, an attorneyjat-law. The details of the transaction were carried out with' singular .skill and audacity.

The deed in question was recorded in the manner required by law, and it must therefore be held valid, unless it is overthrown by competent proof. “ Where an instrument of writing is required by law to be recorded, the 91 enrolment of it is evidence of all circumstances necessary to give it validity. But this evidence is not conclusive; it is only prima facie, and like all prima fade evidence may be rebutted. To give it a conclusive effect might be ruinous to the community; an enrolment however obtained would exclude all inquiry; it would be a shield and protection to fraud, forgery and deceit.” Crawford vs. State, 6 Harris and Johnson, 234. One of the supposed grantors is under the age of twenty-one years, and the instrument is, of course, void as to him.

We are satisfied from the proof that the other supposed grantors never consciously signed the deed. If the signatures are in their genuine handwriting, they were obtained by fraud and deceit practiced by Willson, and under the belief on their part, that they were signing a totally different paper. They never received a cent for their property; they never intended to sell it, they never knowingly signed a deed of conveyance for it; and certainly nothing was further from their thoughts than, to authorize the delivery of this deed by Willson, or by any one else. Under these circumstances, there was no delivery of the deed.

Let us quote a passage from Sheppard’s Touchstone: “The fifth thing required in every well made deed, is that there bo a delivery of it. * * * * And though the party to whom it is made take it to himself, or happen to get it into his hands, yet will it do him no good, nor him that made it any hurt, until it be delivered. And a deed may be delivered by the party himself

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