Keys v. Forrest

Pearce, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant was the owner of the fee in the premises now in controversy, on July 14th, 1868, and on that date executed to Thaddeus Forrest, one of the appellees, a lease of the premises for ninety-nine years, reserving a yearly ground-rent thereon of $40. On the same day Forrest ássigned his leasehold estate therein to Thomas M. Norris, trustee, under a decree of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, who was authorized to employ certain trust funds in his hands in the purchase of these premises subject to said ground-rent, and to execute to said Forrest a mortgage for $788.24 loaned by him to said trustee to enable him to complete such purchase—which was thus made and the mortgage was duly executed. The State and city taxes upon this property for the year 1894 being in arrears, the property was sold at public auction Dec. 17th, 1895, for the payment of these taxes, by Lewis N. Hopkins, collector ¹³⁴ to Wm.

E. Croswell. This sale was duly reported to, and ratified by the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, and on April 22nd, 1897, John F. Parlett, then collector, in pursuance of the ordinances of the Mayor and City Council, conveyed the fee to said Croswell, who in turn, on Aug. 12th, 1897, ' conveyed the same to Hattie V. Forrest, one of the appellees, a sister of Thaddeus Forrest. On March 17th, 1898, this bill was filed by the appellant for the purpose of removing the cloud claimed to be cast on her title by the tax sale and the conveyances ^mentioned. . The bill charges that the appellant was on July 14th, 1868, seized in fee of said premises, and being so seized, executed the lease above mentioned by which Thaddeus Forrest convenanted for himself and his assigns to pay said ground-rent and all taxes on the premises, when the same should be payable, but that the said Thaddeus Forrest combined and conspired with the other appellees, Wm.

E. Croswell and Hattie V. Forrest, to cheat the appellant out of Her fee-simple estate in the premises by neglecting and failing to pay the taxes thereon, and by causing the tax sale to be made as has been stated ;• that appellant had no knowledge of said tax sale or of said conveyances until Feb. 8th, 1898, when she applied to Thaddeus Forrest for the rent in arrear, and then learned of said sale, and that she had been kept in ignorance of the sale by the continued payment of said ground-rent up to Dec. 3rd,’ 1896, by said Thaddeus Forrest, after said sale had been ratified. The bill further alleged that the tax sale was void by reason of failure to comply with the statute regulating such sales, arid prayed that the sale be declared null and void, and that all the deeds mentioned be declared clouds upon her fee-simple title and be set aside, and for such other relief as might be granted. There is no averment that the appellant was in possession at the time the bill was filed. It would therefore have been demurrable, if that course had been taken.

Answers however were filed by all the appellees denying all fraud, com ¹³⁵ bination or conspiracy,