Poole v. Poole

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The bill in this case was filed on the 17th of July, 1915, by Catherine Poole, as widow and as administratrix of a certain George W. P'oole, deceased, her late husband, and also as next friend of Mary W. Poole, their infant daughter, against Edward H. Poole, Mary E. P'oole and H. Milton Poole to vacate and set aside a deed dated the 8th day of October, 1897, and also a series of other deeds, dated April 28th, 1915, conveying certain leasehold property, situate in Baltimore City to Mary W. Poole, the grantee, named in the deeds. George W. Poole, the grantor in the deed dated October 8th, 1897, died intestate on the 30th day of April, 1911, leaving one daughter, and a widow, Catherine Poole, the plaintiffs below and the appellants on this record. Mary E. Poole, widow, the mother of the intestate George and the grantee in the deeds in question is dead, having died since the decree in the Court below, but her testimony taken prior to her death as a witness in the ease, is set out- in the record.

The property conveyed by the deed of October 8th, 1897, consists of a one-third interest of the grantor in six leasehold lots of ground, situate in the City of Baltimore, and is described as being the same six lots of ground mentioned in a deed from Edward EE. Poole, administrator of Henry Poole, to Mary Poole, his widow, Edward H. Poole and George W. Poole, sons of the intestate, as tenants in common. The value of the six lots, as returned by the administrator, in the inventory of the estate, is $6,300. ³⁸⁹ The principal contest arises upon tlie deed from George TV. Poole dated the 8th of October, 1897, to Mary Poole, his mother, and the objections to the validity of this deed, are averred in substance in the fourth paragraph of the bill to be as follows: First, that while the deed purports to convey all the right, title and interest of the grantor in and to the six lots of ground, to the grantee, Mary Poole, his mother, for a consideration therein set forth of five dollars and other good and valuable consideration yet, notwithstanding the deed, George TV.

Poole. Edward H. Poole and Mary Poole, continued to use, occupy and enjoy the property, and the rents and profits therefrom as tenants in common. Second, that George TV. Poole; grantor, never relinquished or intended to relinquish, but retained and had the use, benefit and advantage of an indefeasible' undivided one-third interest, right and estate in and to the property as tenant in common with Mary Poole, widow, his. mother, and Edward PI.

Poole, his elder brother, who fully recognized and treated the same as common property, each entitled to one-third undivided interest therein, and which one-third share at the death of George TV. Poole, passed to his next of kin and personal representatives; and third, that the deed of the 8th of October, 1897, is void and in fraud of the rights, of the wife and of her infant child, Mary E. Poole, in the property conveyed therein. The deed here in question, it will be seen, is upon its. face, an absolute conveyance, and expresses a. consideration of five dollars and other valuable consideration. Upon its execution and delivery there was. a complete transfer and assignment of the property mentioned therein to the grantee and the interest of the grantor became vested in her.

The presumption of law is, that a deed made for a. valuable consideration, however small, is valid and bona fide. Goodwin v. White, 59 Md. 503 ; Tyner v. Johnson, 119 Md. 632 ; Von Buchwaldt v. Schlens, 123 Md. 406 ; Jervis v. Jervis, 127 Md. 133 . ³⁹⁰ > Was the deed in question in fraud of the rights of the wife, and of her infant child? Tt has been