Willis v. Hodson

Robinson, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Mary M. Wagner was on the 20th May, 1891, under proceedings instituted in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, found to be a lunatic, and the Safe Deposit and Trust Company was appointed committee of her person and trustee of her property. On the 10th of June following, a petition was filed by the trustee in the lunacy proceedings for the sale of a lot belonging to the lunatic in fee, and for the sale of her leasehold interest in certain other lote, on the ground that it would be to her interest and advantage that the property should be sold, and the proceeds invested in such securities as the Court may deem proper. Ho summons was issued for the appearance of the lunatic, nor was there an order of publication passed by the Court.

It appears, however, a copy of the petition was by the order of the County Judge of Ontario County, New York, served upon the lunatic, she being at that time in an asylum in that State; and upon proof of such service the Circuit Court of Baltimore City appointed a guardian ad litem for the lunatic, and Mr. George L. Thomas as her solicitor. The answer of the guardian having been filed, proof was taken in support of the allegations in the petition, and on the 27th of June the Court passed' an order directing the property to ³²⁹ be sold. In pursuance of this order, tbe property now in question was sold to William F. Weber, and the sale thus made was duly ratified. Subsequently, Schwartz and Smith were substituted as purchasers, and the property was deeded to them.

Afterwards, they became the owners of the fee, and thereupon they leased part of the land to Weber, reserving a ground rent of $146.00 per annum. Weber having died, his leasehold interest was sold by his administrator, under an order of the Orphans’ Court, to the appellee, and the sale was ratified by said Court. The appellee, being advised that the title to the lot was not a merchantable title, she refused to comply with the terms of sale. So the question is whether the appellant as administrator could convey to the appellee a good and valid title.

And this depends upon whether the Circuit Court of Baltimore City had jurisdiction to pass the order of the 27th of June, under which the leasehold interest of the lunatic, Mary M. Wagner, was sold. Section 98 of Article 16 of the Code authorizes the Court, upon the application of the trustee of any person non compos mentis, to decree the sale of real or personal property to which such compos mentis may be entitled. But section 100 provides that before passing such decree the Court shall have the appearance and answer of such person, as provided in section 124, and have proof taken, as in other chancery cases, as to the value, &c., of the property, and after considering all the circumstances the Court may, if it shall deem it for the interest and advantage of such non compos mentis, decree the sale of the whole or part of the property on such terms and conditions as it may prescribe. Section 124 provides that upon return of process, as served, or upon proof of due publication of the order of publication, as against non-resident defendants, the Court shall in case of infants or non-sane defendants, &c., either require the legal guardian or committee of the infant or non-sane defendant, if there be such guardian or ³³⁰ committee within the jurisdiction of the Court, to appear, answer and defend for such party, or to appoint a guardian ad litem to appear and defend the suits,