Weiprecht v. Gill

Appellees have filed, together with three letters from title companies, a petition for a "clarification", of two sentences in the opinion, which "will not in any way affect the decision * * * in this case, the conclusions reached, or the basis thereof", but is desired in order to allay fear that these two sentences "cast doubt upon a proposition of law heretofore universally accepted in Maryland," to wit, "that a deed of trust becomes a * * * lien on the property conveyed thereby at the time of the recording, prior to all other liens which may subsequently attach thereto". As appellees and the title companies disclaim any error in "the decision in this case, the conclusions reached, or the basis thereof", their fears necessarily imply that, by correct statements of the law as applied to the facts of this case, this court has cast doubt upon a proposition of law "heretofore universally accepted in Maryland" and not questioned, but actually applied, in this case, and may have overruled, without mentioning, many previous decisions, e.g., the conclusion, arrived at after argument on two appeals and never since questioned, that the expression "subject only to the existing liens thereon" at the time of a conveyance by deed of trust should be construed "to include the entire lien of the [prior deed of trust in the nature of a] mortgage and the bonds issued and to be issued thereunder." Orrick v. Fidelity Deposit Co., 113 Md. 239 , 248, 77 A. 599 , 602, former appeal, Diggs v. Fidelity Deposit Co., 112 Md. 50 , 82, 75 A. 517 , 20 Ann. Cas. 1274. By the unusual language of the deed of trust in the instant case, the proposed indebtedness of $265,000, i.e., 53 notes for $5000 each, was not all to be secured on all the 53 lots, but each note was to be "separately and exclusively secured" on one lot. Only $32,700 in the aggregate was actually advanced under the deed of trust, including advances in respect of only 17 of the 30 lots against which appellant filed mechanic's