In Re Buckler Trusts

Stockbridge, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On March 23rd, 1923, William II. Buckler and his wife filed their petition in the Circuit Court Ho. 2 of Baltimore City, wherein they prayed that court to assume jurisdiction of the trusts created by a deed of trust, dated April 20, 1892, from Eliza R. Buckler and Thomas H. Buckler, her husband, to J. LeRo-y White and J. Southgate Yeaton, trustees. The petition further recited the death of said trustees, and their failure to. nominate successor trustees as provided in such instrument.

The petition, accordingly, prayed for the appointment by the court of trustees for the purposes set forth in the said deed of trust. Upon this petition the lower court passed an order nisi granting the relief prayed, unless, cause to the contrary should be shown on or before April 14th, 1923, provided notice by publication be given as provided in said order. This notice was duly given. On April 12th, Loft, Inc., filed a. paper, called an answer to the original petition, wherein it sets up: (1) That it has. entered into an agreement, with William H. Buckler and his wife (beneficiaries under said deed of trust) and with William H1.

Buckler as attorney for J. LeRov White and J. Southgate. Yeaton, trustees (the trustees, named in said deed of trust) under power of attorney, dated October 12th, 1896, and with John E. Semmes, attorney in fact, for William H. Buckler, as attorney for the trustees under said ⁴²⁶ power of attorney, for the lease of the premises 225, 221 and 229 W. Lexington St., Baltimore, which properties were purchased by the trustees with the trust funds created by said deed of trust. (2) That these proceedings were instituted for the purpose of having trustees appointed in the place of White and Yeaton, both deceased, pursuant to the terms of the aforesaid agreement to lease, whereby it was. provided that the title must be made good and marketable within a, reasonable time. (3) That these proceedings are defective and if consummated and the trustees suggested are appointed by virtue thereof, its title as lessee of said properties would not be good and marketable.

(4) That for the -various reasons set forth substituted trustees cannot be appointed herein in an ex pa/rte proceeding. (5) On information and belief that an agreement has been made to lease said properties, in derogation of the respondent’s rights and in violation of the terms of the aforementioned agreement of lease, to some person unknown to respondent, and that these proceedings are being used in furtherance of an effort to deprive the respondent of its rights and privileges under said agreement of lease and for the purpose of vesting said rights and privileges in some third party. On April 23rd the petitioners filed a motion that the paper filed by Loft, Inc., he stricken from the record. On April 25th Loft, Inc., filed a motion of ne recipiatur as to' the above motion of the petitioners.

After hearing, the court, on May llth, passed an order directing’ the clerk of -the court to strike from the files of the court the paper filed by Loft, Inc., on April 12th.' On the same day the petitioners filed a petition reciting* the publication of