Euler v. Schroeder

Schmucker, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a decree of Circuit Court Ho.-2 of Baltimore City sustaining a demurrer and dismissing the bill of complaint to which it had been filed. The bill of complaint, alleges that the appellees Schroeder and wife “secured from your oratrix (the appellant) the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000) cash money for the purpose of purchasing the leasehold property known as Ho. 728 Dukeland Avenue/5 in Baltimore City. “That the said sum of one thousand dollars was thereupon applied and used for and on account of part payment for said property/5 but the appellees took the title thereto in their own names as joint tenants and gave a mortgage on it to a loan company for $1,500, that being the remainder of the entire purchase money of $2,500, which was stated in the bill to be about the value of the property. Then comes the following paragraph: “That although the said property was purchased in the names of the said defendants nevertheless your Oratrix believed at the time of turning-over to the defendants said sum of one thousand dollars and, until a short time ago, rested under the belief and in confidence that it was mutually agreed and understood between said defendants and herself that she, your Oratrix, had and was entitled to have an equitable interest in and to said leasehold property; and herein she avers that she has an equitable interest, right and title in and to said property to the amount and extent of her aforesaid one thousand dollars therein invested; and your Oratrix further represents unto your Honor ¹⁵⁷ that it was agreed and promised by said defendants that she should receive from her said investment certain and regular installments of interest money, but that said defendants have since failed and refused to pay the same or any amount or amounts thereof.” It is further alleged that the plaintiff “is eighty-four years of age a German woman uneducated in the English language and has had practically no business experience” and did not properly understand the transaction “when she turned over the $1,000 to the defendants” and that it was “turned over” to them “through mistake and ignorance on her part and advantage taken thereof by said defendants, and also through the undue influence used and .practiced on her by the defendants.” The bill further states that the defendants “refuse to recognize the equity right and interest of the plaintiff in the property, and it charges on information and belief that they are about to sell the pi'operty and exclude her from any share in the proceeds of its sale.

The prayer of the bill is that a trustee may be appointed to sell the property and distribute the proceeds of sale amongst all parties concerned as their interest may appear, and for an injunction pendente lite and for general relief. At the hearing of the case upon the demurrer an order was passed sustaining the demurrer with leave to the plaintiff to file an amended bill of complaint within ten days. It was only after her failure to avail herself of the opportunity thus afforded her to perfect the statement of her case, if it had been possible for her to do so, that the decree, dismissing the bill was passed. We therefore conclude that the bill as filed contains the most favorable statement of the plaintiff’s case of which it is susceptible.

We agree with the learned Judge below that this hill does not state a case entitling the appellant to equitable relief. It is a well settled and familiar principle of equity pleading that every bill of complaint must contain a clear statement of the facts upon which the plaintiff relies for relief as ¹⁵⁸ it is from those facts alone that the Court derives its jurisdiction. Lamm v. Burrell, 69 Md. 274 ; Payne v. Payne. 97 Md. 685 . Where the bill asks for an injunction, as it does in the present case, “a full and candid disclosure of all of the facts must be made” and “the res gestae must be represented as they actually are.” Lamm v. Burrell, supra; Johnson v. Glenn, 40 Md. 200 ; Tifel v. Jenkins, 95 Md. 668 ; Davidson v. Baltimore, 96 Md. 513 ; Baker v. Baker, 108 Md. 274 .

Disregarding the fact that the bill asks for an injunction, we fail to see that it states ground for any equitable relief at all. The appellant contends that under its allegations she is entitled to have a resulting trust declared in her favor in the leasehold purchased by the appellees although that is not the