Griffith v. Hammond

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order of the Court below, ratifying the sale of certain real estate sold under a decree of the Circuit Court for Frederick County, in Equity. The facts may be briefly stated as follows: Thomas Hammond died in the latter part of the year 1874, seized of a large and valuable real estate lying in Frederick, Carroll, Howard and Allegany counties. On the 28th of May, 1874, he executed his will, in which he devised to Dawson V. Hammond in trust for Louisa Griffith and her children, part of his home farm in Frederick county called “ Black Castle.” About two weeks after the execution of this will, the testator conveyed by deed to Dawson Y. Hammond all his ⁸⁷ real estate, in Frederick, Carroll and Howard counties, the consideration set forth in said deed being love and affection and the payment of the sum of five dollars.

The personal estate of the deceased being insufficient to pay his debts, a creditor’s bill was filed by the Frederick-town Savings Institution to set aside said deed as being fraudulent as to creditors, and praying for a decree to sell so much -of the real estate of the deceased as might be necessary to pay his debts. Heither the heirs of the late Thomas Hammond, nor the devisees or legatees under the will of the 28th of May were made parties to this bill, the only person against whom process was prayed being Dawson V. Hammond the grantee in the deed of June .13th, and certain mortgage creditors of the deceased. On this bill a decree was passed setting aside the deed to Dawson V. Hammond as being fraudulent as to creditors, and directing a sale of so much of the real estate of the deceased as may be necessary to pay his debts. Under this decree “the Home Farm,” known as “Black Castle,” part of which was devised by the will of May 28th in trust for Louisa Griffith and her children, was sold to Jesse C. Engle, for the sum of forty-five dollars per acre.

To the ratification of the sale thus made, Louisa Griffith and her husband filed the following, among other objections : 1. That the Court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree under which the property was sold. 2. That the exceptants were not made parties to the proceedings. 3. That the real estate sold was specifically devised in trust for the appellant Louisa Griffith and her children. 4.

That the deed to Dawson V. Hammond did not operate as a revocation of the will under which the exceptants claim. ⁸⁸ (Decided 16th June, 1876.) 5. That said deed was procured hy the fraud of said Dawson. 6. That the grantor was incompetent to make a valid deed or contract. These