Nagengast v. Alz

Page, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from an order of the Court below granting an injunction to restrain the appellant from prosecuting a suit at law against the appellee. . The bill alleges that prior to August, 1899, the appellee was the owner of a patent known as “Safety Device for Elevators that he entered into a contract with the appellant whereby the latter agreed to assume charge of the sale of the patent, conduct the business affairs of the appellee and act’ as his-secretary; that in consideration of the assignment of a half-interest in the said patent for England, France and Belgium, the appellant agreed to furnish money for the support of the appellee and “take charge of the business affairs of” the appellee ; “that as a part of said business affairs the said Nagengast purchased and took a deed in his own name on August 17th, 1899, f°r a tract of land, consisting of about eight acres located, &c., a certified copy of which deed will be filed in this case if the same is deemed necessary.” That “the said tract of land was purchased in the name of said Nagengast at the suggestion- and direction and the price agreed upon by your orator and the said Nagengast, that the said Nagengast would pay the amount of the price above the amount that could be obtained on mortgage on said property and pay taxes and interest on mortgage and all other expenses thereon, until the sale of said patent be consummated, and your orator would repay him as soon as he could realize money from the sale of ⁵²⁴ said patent, and that in the meantime your orator should' be considered the real owner of said tract of land.” The bill further alleges that the said tract was in fact purchased for the appellee, who immediately removed to and since has lived thereon since that time; that the appellee refused to assign a half-interest in the patent for the United States to the appellant, and thereupon the latter took legal proceedings to eject him from the land; that an ejectment suit for that purpose is now pending in the Baltimore City Court; and prays that an in-j unction may issue restraining the appellant from the further prosecution of that suit. The bill contains other allegations, but they are not important in the determination of the question involved.

The Court granted the injunction as prayed, and the appellant, having filed an answer to the bill, has appealed. The appellee contends that the facts just stated make “a clear case of constructive trust,” and to sustain his contention, cites Tiedeman on Real Property, 2d ed., sec. 501, to the effect that such a trust arises “when the trustee or any person holding a fiduciary position, by fraud actual or constructive, makes an illegal disposition of the trust property, to the injury of the cestui que trust or beneficiary.” However true this may be as an independent proposition, it is difficult to perceive its application to the facts of this case. It is not charged that the appellee has paid any money, or done or forborne anything on account of the purchase of the property, or that he is in any different situation than before the transaction. It is alleged that the appellant purchased and took a deed in his own name, “as part of said business affairs,” but it is not stated what the connection was, and it is impossible in the absence of information to understand what the purchase of the land had to do with the business of the other.

It is not shown what interest the appellee had in the property, if any.