Rogers v. Sisters of Charity of St. Joseph

McSherry, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. There can be doubt as to the correctness of the decree against which the pending appeal was taken. The single question presented arises on a case stated under Art. 16, secs. 184. and 185, of the Code of Public General Laws. The facts are briefly as follows : The Sisters of Charity of Saint Joseph are a body corporate.

The corporation was created by the General Assembly of Maryland at the session of eighteen hundred and sixteen. By the terms of its charter the corporation was empowered amongst other things to take and hold in fee-simple “lands and real estate * * * and all such lands and real * * * estate to sell, lease, dispose of and convey in as full and ample manner as any person or body corporate holding any lands or property, real, personal or mixed, may sell, lease, dispose of and convey the same.” The corporation was formed “for works of piety, charity and usefulness, and especially for the care of the sick, the succor of aged, infirm and necessitous persons, and the education of young females. ” By an Act of Congress approved February the twenty-fifth, eighteen hundred and thirty-one, Saint Vincent’s Orphan Asylum was incorporated. It was also authorized to acquire and hold real estate. In eighteen hundred and eighty-two, John Hoover and wife, in consideration of the sum of ten ⁵⁵² dollars, granted, bargained, sold, aliened, enfeoffed,-released and conveyed to the Sisters of Charity of Saint Joseph certain real estate lying partly in the District of Columbia and partly in Prince.

George’s County," Maryland, “to have and to hold * * * in trust for, the sole use and benefit of Saint Vincent’s Female Orphan Asylum.’’ In February, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, the- same John Hoover, in consideration of the sum of ten dollars, granted, bargained, sold; aliened, enfeoffed, released and conveyed to the Sisters of Charity of Saint Joseph, certain other real estate lyingin Prince George’s County, “to have and to hold * * * in trust for the sole use and benefit of Saint Vincent’s Female Orphan Asylum. ” In February, nineteen hundred and three, the two corporations—the Sisters of Charity and the Saint Vincent’s Orphan Asylum—entered into a written contract with the appellant to sell to him the property conveyed by the deeds above referred to .but the appellant apprehending that there were defects in the title, this proceeding was docketed and a special case— stated was filed for the purpose of obtaining the Court’s opinion on,the question, as to whether the appellees—the two corporations—jointly or severally can convey to the appellant a valid fee-simple title to the lands, or to any part of the Jands mentioned and described in the deeds from Hoover. Several objections have been interposed to the right of the appellees to convey the property, but as the view we take will render it unnecessary to discuss them they need not be alluded to or considered. If the deeds from Hoover be treated as deeds of feoffment and not as deeds of bargain and sale all of the difficulties suggested by the appellant will be cleared away. There are no active duties imposed upon the trustee by either deed.

In fact there are no duties of any kind prescribed. In the absence of such duties, if the deeds are deeds of feoffment, the statute of uses at once executed the legal estate in the cestui que trust, and that corporation, the Saint Vincent Orphan Asylum, was immediately vested with a fee simple estate, upon the delivery and recording of the deeds. The design, object and purpose of the parties to the deeds ⁵⁵³ are evident. The consideration is nominal.

No beneficial interest was conveyed to the Sisters of Charity. The Orphan Asylum was clearly intended to be the real owner of the property. On the face of the deeds all of this is apparent. The law is thoroughly settled.

In Handy et al. v. McKim et al., 64 Md. 568 -9, it was said by C. J. Alvey speaking for the Court: “In expounding deeds no principle is more familiar or better established than that the intention of the parties shall prevail, if not repugnant to some principle or maxim of the law; and that the intention is to be gathered by considering the whole deed, and each and every part thereof. As was declared by the Court of