Placide v. Wilmer

3 Balt. C. Rep. 148
CourtBaltimore City Circuit Court
DecidedOctober 28, 1911
StatusPublished

This text of 3 Balt. C. Rep. 148 (Placide v. Wilmer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Baltimore City Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Placide v. Wilmer, 3 Balt. C. Rep. 148 (Md. Super. Ct. 1911).

Opinion

HEUISLER, J.—

These causes coming on to be heard under the 35th Equity Rule, the bills and answers were read, testimony taken, and the arguments of the respective counsel were made and considered.

On November 10, 1910, Susan E. Placide filed a bill in this court against Edwin M. Wilmer, her brother-in-law, for an accounting and to restrain his foreclosure of a-mortgage on No. 1300 [149]*149Madison avenue, Baltimore City, which property she claimed to own under the deed hereinafter named.

On December 8, 1910, before answering, AVilmer recorded a deed of the mortgaged property, dated July 28, 1887, in which, for a consideration of $9,000 not paid, Miss Placide conveyed that property to Alice P. AVilmer, her sister, and Mr. AVilmer’s wife, which property Miss Placido had bought about six weeks before from the trustees of her mother’s estate for the sum of $9,000 (hen paid by her to them. AVilmer then answered the bill, claiming the mortgage was overdue and unpaid ; that he had always given proper accounts to Miss Placide, and that she liad no title to the mortgaged property. Thereupon Miss Placide filed in this court her bill against AVilmer, his two sons and the husband of a deceased daughter, asking that the deed of July 28, 1887, be stricken down as not her deed. AVilmer answered this bill, and claimed the deed to be bona fide. The other defendants answered, consenting that the deed be vacated. At the hearing, on the motion of Miss Placide’s solicitors, the two cases were consolidated and a great mass of testimony taken, from which (he court finds the following facts, each of which finding of fact is based upon undisputed oral or written evidence offered, Miss Placide’s testimony not being considered unless when admitted to be true, or corrobora! ed by other and undisputed evidence:

"1. On June 16, 1887, by deed, recorded among the Land Records of this city in Liber J. B. 1159, folio 293, from George AV. Lindsay and the said Edwin M. AVilmer. trustees of her mother’s ('state, Susan E. Placide acquired the mortgaged property now known as 1300 Madison avenue. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit A.)

2. On July 28, 1887, only six weeks after the execution of the .above-named deed, she signed a deed of the same property purporting to convey it to her sister, Mrs. Alice Placide AVilmer, which deed is in the handwriting of Edwin M. AVilmer, named a consideration of $9,000, no part of which was ever paid or demanded, which deed was given into Mr. AVilmer’s possession at or about the time it was signed, remained in his possession and custody until it was recorded on December 8, 1910, more than twenty-three years after its date and about twenty years after the death of the grantee. (Defendants' Exhibit No. 3.)

3. That by reason of the close relationship between Miss Placide and her brother-in-law, Mr. AVilmer, and on account of her great confidence in liis integrity and business ability, she trusted him implicitly, and gave him full and entire charge of the management of her property, and the collecting of the income therefrom.

4. That by reason of such confidence Miss Placide was in the habit of signing, without questioning or inquiring into their contents, any papers or writings which Mr. AVilmer, her brother-in-law, presented to her for signature.

5. On July 28, 1887, by reason of such confidence, and without knowing its contents, and without making any inquiry .about them, and without intending to convey to her sister the property therein named, she signed the deed hereinbefore referred to as Defendants’ Exhibit No. 3.

6. On October 30, 18901, this court in the case of George AV. Lindsay and the said Edwin M. AVilmer, trustees, against Alice P. AVilmer et al. (Docket 1887 A, 130), passed a decree requiring the said Alice P. AVilmer, trustee of Jennings Placide, to make good an improper investment of her trust funds of $4,000 by requiring said sum to be invested within five days in a mortgage oil real property in this city to be approved by this court, which decree has been filed as an exhibit in these causes.

7. On November 3, 1890, to assist Mrs. AVilmer to make good such improper investment of trust funds and to comply with said order of court, Miss Placide mortgaged to Alice I’. AVilmer, as trustee for Jennings Placide, the Madison avenue property to secure the repayment of $4,000.

8. That Miss Placide was not in any way responsible for said improper investment, or for any part thereof, and received no benefit therefrom; that from the date of the execution of said mortgage until November 4, 1910, she never paid, or was never asked to pay, any interest on that mortgage, and in the testimony of Mr. AVilmer, given at the hearing, he testified as follows: “It was not intended that either the mortgage, or (he debt thereby intended [150]*150to be secured, should impose any liability on Miss Placide,” and which mortgage, after being reduced by a payment of $3,959.89, was assigned to Edward M. Wilmer, who now holds it, and whose attempted foreclosure is restrained by these proceedings, and is filed in these causes as Plaintiff’s Exhibit B.

9. That after July 28, 1887, the date of said unrecorded deed to his wife, and while such deed was in his possession and custody, Edwin M. Wilmer made the following written admissions of Miss Placide’s absolute ownership of the property described in that deed:

(a) On November, 1890, he wrote a petition to which his wife swore, as trustee, and in which she prayed this court to allow her to invest in a mortgage on the property in that deed the sum of $4,000, which investment she was required to make by the order of October 30, 1890, and the order authorizing the making of the said investment, and the execution of such mortgage, is also in the handwriting of the said Edwin M. Wilmer, and which petition and order is filed as an exhibit in these causes.

(b) On February 24, 1891, he applied to the Merchants’ National Bank of Baltimore for a loan of $7,800 on the four months paper of his wife, to be endorsed by himself and Miss Placide, submitting to the bank a detailed schedule of the property owned by his wife and Bliss Placide, which application and schedules therein named are in his own handwriting, and were made according- to his testimony, with the assent of his wife and Bliss Placide, and in which statement he represented Miss Placide to be the owner of No. 1300 Bladison avenue (Plaintiff’s Exhibit E) : on December 7, 1900, he gave that bank a book containing- statements entirely in his own handwriting of his individual property, the property of his wife and the property of Bliss Susan E. Placide, which contains the statement that Bliss Placide owns No. 1300 Bladison avenue, in fee, subject to a mortgage of $3,959.89, balance held by E. Bl. Wilmer (Plaintiff’s Exhibit F) ; and on Blarch 30, 1904, he gave that bank another book marked “Schedule of Property, Assets and Interest in Estates of Susan E. Placide and Edwin Bl. Wilmer, respectively submitted by E. Bl. Wilmer,” in which property schedule 1300 Bladison avenue is listed as being the property of Susan E. Placide, subject to the above mortgage, each of which statements are entirely in the handwriting of Blr. Wilmer, make no claim of ownership of the Bladison Avenue property by the estate of his wife, and upon the faith of which statements the bank made loans to Blr. Wilmer (Plaintiffs Exhibit G).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Balt. C. Rep. 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/placide-v-wilmer-mdcirctctbalt-1911.