Johns Hopkins University v. Williams

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The question in this appeal is whether the sum' of $28,375, paid to George H. Williams as executor of Henry W. Baxley, by the executors of Philip S. Chappell, is to be treated as real or personal estate ? It appears that Baxley sold to Philip S. Chappell and Allston A. Perry the land from which the money in question was ultimately derived, for $54,607—$29,607 was to be paid in cash, and the remaining $25,000 in five years, with interest on said sum payable semi-annually. Baxley also agreed to execute to any person purchasing a part of said land from Chappell and Perry to the value of $5000, a conveyance of such aliquot part of said land upon the payment of such sum to him by Chappell and Perry.

The agreement further set forth an undertaking that Baxley would consummate the sale as soon as the proper papers could be prepared; and that his wife would unite therein for the purpose of releasing her dower. The agreement was dated August 26th, 1865, and the credits upon it show the payment by Chappell and Perry of $29,607. The agreement thus executed became a binding contract for the sale of land, capable of being enforced. Under it, ²³⁹ Chappell and Perry would he treated in equity as the owners of the land, and Baxley would he treated as the owner of the money due on the purchase.

As purchasers they could have devised it as land even before a conveyance, or in case of intestacy, it would have descended to their heirs-at-law. Rose vs. Watson, 10 House of Lords Cases, 678; Seton vs. Slade, 7 Vesey, 264-274; Story’s Equity Jurisprudence, sec. 790. On the other hand the $25,000 balance of purchase money belonged to Baxley, and upon his death would have formed a part of his personal estate. This we understand to he conceded by the counsel for the appellant.

It appears however that on the 22nd of September following, Baxley and wife leased to Chappell and Perry the same tract of land for five years upon the payment of the yearly sum of fifteen hundred dollars as rent, the same to he paid semi-annually, with a covenant in the lease on the part of Baxley to convey to the lessees the reversion at any time within five years, upon the payment by them of $25,000. Shortly after the execution of the lease, Baxley went to Europe, and continued to reside there for several years after the expiration of the time within which the lessees had the right to purchase the reversion. It appears, however by the proof, that Baxley was willing to accept the payment of the $25,000, both during and after the expiration of the term, and to convey the same to the lessees in fee, hut the latter insisted that his wife should join in the conveyance; and this, owing to the relations then existing between him and his wife, Baxley refused to procure. It is now contended, that bv the execution of the lease, the ownership in the land which Chappell and Perry acquired under their purchase of August 26th, was surrendered ; and that they are no longer to he treated in equity, as the owners of the property and entitled to a ²⁴⁰ conveyance of the same upon the payment of the balance of the purchase money, but are merely lessees, with the privilege of purchasing the reversion at any time within five years upon the payment of $25,000.

And that Baxley is to he treated as being no longer entitled to the balance of the purchase money under the original agreement, but as the owner, in fact, of the fee. And that the money which was paid by Chappell’s executors to the executor of Baxley, with the consent of all parties interested, must therefore he treated as personal estate. Now if this question depended solely upon the