Thomas v. Standiford

Brent, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The object of the bill in this case is to obtain an injunction, restraining the appellants and the sheriff of Baltimore County from selling under execution certain lease ¹⁸⁴ hold property, to satisfy judgments against the husband of the appellee. The lot in question was leased by John Fox and wife,, on the 5th day of March, 1873, to Edward P. Standiford, for the period of ninety-nine years, the consideration being-the payment of an annunl rent of $32. The lease seems, to have heen signed at that date hy the respective parties, hut is not acknowledged until the 7th of April, following.

On the 23rd of the following June the lease was assigned by Standiford, for the consideration of five dollars, to his. wife, Amelia E., and on the same day both the lease and assignment were deposited in the clerk’s office for record. The judgment of the appellant, Thomas, was obtained against Edward P. Standiford, on the 24th of August, 1869, and having heen revived by scire facias, an execution was issued and levied upon the property in question, when further proceedings were restrained hy injunction. Upon final hearing this injunction was made perpetual, and from this decree the present appeal is taken. The hill in substance, sets up an exclusive beneficial interest of the wife in the lease, by the assignment of her-husband, and from the fact that the buildings and improvements were put upon the property with her money.

The only ground upon which Mrs. Standiford’s claim to. the'property can be supported, is hy reason of a resulting trust; and th'e question arises is such a trust sustained by the proof? As stated in the opinion of the learned Judge of the Circuit Court, “ there is, perhaps, no principle more clearly settled by numerous authorities, than that if a husband purchases an estate with the money of his wife, there is a. resulting trust, and the husband holds the property as trustee for the benefit of his wife.” While parol proof is. admissible to establish a trust of this sort, it is important to,understand that such proof must be strong and convincing. In the case of Greer vs. Baughman, and others, 13 ¹⁸⁵ Md., 257 , which is very similar in its facts to the present one, the Court, after an examination of the cases on this subject, holds that the proof of the