Barnitz v. Reddington

Citations

• 80 Md. 622

Syllabus

<p>Apportionment of Ground Rent — Presumption of Apportionment— Curative Act — Administration on Leasehold Estate.</p> <p>In 1793, the owner of a tract of land, including the lot in question, leased the whole tract for 99 years, renewable forever, to Q., subject to the yearly rent of two pounds and fourteen shillings. In the same year Q. subleased the lot in question to P., whose title by mesne conveyances became vested in appellants. In the sublease from Q. to P. the rent reserved was one pound four shillings per annum, and none of the subsequent conveyances mentioned any other rent as issuing out of the lot. There was evidence to show that for more than fifty years no other rent had been demanded from the owners of this lot. Held, that it was reasonable to conclude that the lot was not liable for any other rent, and that there had been an apportionment of the rent resting upon the original tract of which the lot in question was about one fifth.</p> <p>In 1856, M. then being the owner of the above-mentioned leasehold lot, conveyed the same to B. by a deed in fee, which was not recorded for more than six months after its date. In 1875 the children of B., then deceased, procured a deed of the lot to themselves from M., in which it was described as leasehold. Held, that the deed to B. became operative by virtue of the Curative Act of 1860 (Code, Art. 2, sec. 19); that the deed from M. to B.’s children could not convey anything, since M. had divested himself of all title by the former deed ; that since, at the time of the conveyance to B. by .M., the latter had only a leasehold interest, B. acquired that only ; and that in order to vest title in B.’s children, administration on B.’s estate was necessary.</p>