or property that might be recovered therein, | up an agreement between said Hendrix and could not be properly granted; the wife not be- the plaintiff. The agreement and power of ing made a party. defendants filed answers to the bill, and attorney were filed with their answer. APPLICATION. The [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. §§ 203-210; Dec. Dig. § 114.*] 4. EQUITY (§ 290*)-PLEADING-AMENDMENT- some testimony was taken on the part of the defendants; it being stated by counsel that it was taken out of the regular order because the witnesses were about to leave the state. The same day Arthur D. Hendrix filed a petition, in which he alleged that he and his wife had a third interest in' any money or other property which might be obtained through the prosecution of the 5. INJUNCTION (§ 30*)-RESTRAINING SETTLE-red to the exhibits already filed by Messrs. cause or any compromise thereof and referMENT-REMEDY BY ACTION. The application to file an amended petition, merely alleging that petitioner has just come into possession of new facts of a highly important character, and they not being stated, and the proposed amended petition not being presented, the court was not required to grant the relief. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Equity, Cent. Dig. 549; Dec. Dig. § 290.*] The remedy of one having by agreement with another an interest in any recovery such other may secure in a suit is not to enjoin compromise by such person of such suit, but by action at law against him. Winslow and Sparks. The petition alleges that Mr. Standiford requested and urged him to deposit $100 as security for costs, alleging that the plaintiff would repay him in a few days, but she had not done so and intended to defraud him of it, "and that the said Standiford, when requested recently in Appeal from Circuit Court No. 2 of Bal-regard to the return of this money to your [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. § 52; Dec. Dig. § 30.*] timore City; James P. Gorter, Judge. petitioner, stated that the suit had been settled in New York City some time during the beginning of the week of November 16, 1908." It then alleges that said Standiford refused to state to him or the other attor Petitions by Arthur D. Hendrix and others against Emily U. Bull and others. From an order sustaining demurrers to, and dismissing the petitions, petitioners appeal. Argued before BOYD, C. J., and BRIS-neys of record any of the particulars of the COE, PEARCE, SCHMUCKER, BURKE, and THOMAS, JJ. Affirmed. J. Leiper Winslow and James Hewes, for appellants. W. Burns Trundle, for appellees. been unable to obtain the particulars of the alleged settlement, and the petitioner has said agreement, and then charged that Harrie M. Bull, one of the defendants, had deliberately entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for the purpose of defeating the rights of the petitioner, that the agree'BOYD, C. J. Fannie S. McAlister filed a ment was collusive and made with the inbill in equity for the purpose of having a tention of defrauding the petitioner out of deed of trust from Mary Ida Swayne to Har- the interest and one-third of the money or rie Melvin Bull, trustee, set aside, and of property obtained through the prosecution having certain other property declared to be or compromise of the case. The petitioner that of the estate of Mary Ida Swayne. It then prayed that the plaintiff and defendalso prayed for the appointment of a re- ants be enjoined from carrying out that ceiver, for an accounting, and for an injunc- collusive agreement. An order was passed tion, as well as for general relief. The the- that the injunction issue unless cause to ory of the bill, briefly stated, was that Mary the contrary be shown on or before the 10th Ida Swayne was incapable of transferring of December, 1908. On December 2d an her property, and that through fraud and order was filed with the clerk directing the undue influence the defendants acquired it, bill of complaint to be entered "Dismissed." although, if she died intestate, the plaintiff The defendants and the plaintiff demurred vas entitled to one-half there as her niece. to the petition of Hendrix. The latter then The bill was filed on June 13, 1908, and filed a petition asking leave to amend his Messrs. Standiford, Sparks, and Winslow former petition, alleging that he had "just signed it as her solicitors. On August 29, come into possession of new facts of a high1908, the plaintiff, through Mr. Standiford, ly important character, as regards the said filed a petition alleging that she never em- collusive agreement to settle the case, which ployed Messrs. Winslow and Sparks, and he could not possibly have gotten before asking that their appearance be stricken this time and should be stated in his petiout, that they be ordered to refrain from tion," and asking that his wife be permitted representing her, and be required to turn to join in the amended petition. The deover to Mr. Standiford all papers and letters fendants and plaintiff demurred to that pepertaining to the case which were in their tition. Then Messrs. Winslow and Sparks possession. Messrs. Winslow and Sparks filed a petition asking to be permitted to filed an answer, alleging that Arthur D. join Arthur D. Hendrix in his petition to Hendrix had employed them under a power enjoin the plaintiff and defendants from enof attorney from the plaintiff, and setting tering into a collusive agreement to settle for the further reason that, although the petitioner alleges that Mr. Hendrix and his wife have a third interest in the money or property which might be recovered, she was not even made a party. the case. They filed a power of attorney | legations of the petition was already done. from Mr. Hendrix by which he appointed An injunction could not properly have been Messrs. Standiford, Sparks, and Winslow granted for that reason, and we might add his attorneys to represent him in all matters and things relating to the claim of Mrs. McAlister against the estate of Mary Ida Swayne, and agreeing to pay them 25 per centum of "all sums recovered by suit, compromise or settlement or otherwise." Then Mr. Hendrix and wife and Messrs. Winslow and Sparks filed a petition, in which it is stated that the plaintiff assigned 50 per cent. of her claim against the defendants in the case to the petitioners and J. Richard Standiford, and ask to be made parties plaintiff. Demurrers were filed to these petitions, and the court sustained the demurrers and dismissed the petitions without prejudice. From the order so disposing of the demurrers, this appeal was taken. If we were compelled to pass on such an agreement as this, we would have great hesitation in sustaining it. It is practically an agreement to produce evidence which Mr. and Mrs. Hendrix say they can produce, but which Fannie S. McAlister cannot without their aid, which would cause the deed of trust to be set aside, and such an agreement is fraught with so much danger that it would behoove a court to act with the greatest possible caution before giving its sanction to it; but, while it might be an interesting subject to consider, it is not necessary in this case and hence we pass no judgment upon it. We can have no doubt that Fannie S. McAlister had the power to compromise the case and to dismiss the bill. It was said in Western Union Telegraph Company v. Semmes, 73 Md. 9, 20 Atl. 127: "We should be most reluctant to say that public policy would sustain a contract, whereby a litigant should put it out of his power to compromise his suit according to his own wishes or interest. But in this case the contract in question does' not admit of any such construction. There is nothing in its terms which interferes with the defendant's unlimited control over its own litigation." That language is peculiarly opposite to this case, as we find nothing in the agreement relied on or in the proceedings which suggests that the plaintiff could not settle the case. On the contrary, the agreement itself contemplates a settlement. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Hendrix were originally parties to the suit, and it was not entered to their use or to the use of either of them. The first petition of Arthur D. Hendrix asking the court to enjoin the plaintiff and defendants from carrying out their "collusive agreement," as it is called, alleges that Mr. Standiford had informed the petitioner that the suit had been settled, and that he had been unable to ascertain the terms of the settlement. Yet the prayer of the petition was to enjoin the parties from The application to file an amended petition states that the original petition alleged that "the plaintiff and defendants were entering into a collusive agreement to settle the above-entitled case," etc.; but, as we have seen, it in effect alleges that the settlement had already been made. But, while the application alleges that the petitioner had "just come into possession of new facts of a highly important character," etc., such new facts were not stated, and the proposed amended petition was not presented. There can be no doubt that the court was not called upon to grant the relief sought on such general allegations, without being informed as to what the facts relied on were. The petition of Messrs. Winslow and Sparks and the exhibits filed with it disclose the fact that they were employed as the attorneys of Arthur D. Hendrix-not those of the plaintiff. They were appointed by Mr. Hendrix "to be my attorneys" and "to represent me." They do not disclose any right to an injunction against the plaintiff and defendants in the case. Nor do we find any reason for admitting them or Mr. and Mrs. Hendrix as parties. The petition asking that to be done, as well as the one of Messrs. Winslow and Sparks, was not filed until several months after the order of the plaintiff dismissing the bill had been filed. As indicated from the above quotation from the case of Western Union Telegraph Company v. Semmes, this court has never given its sanction to a doctrine which prevents a litigant from compromising a case, although his attorney may have a contingent fee in the result. It is said in 2 Poe, § 52, that: "The existence of an agreement for a contingent fee does not, however, prevent the plaintiff from discontinuing the action." That being so, a fortiori, a layman should not be permitted to prevent the plaintiff from doing so because he has a contingent compensation in a case. When an attorney has rendered service in such a case, his remedy is against his client, and, if any of the appellants have any rights under the agreement and powers of attorney, their remedy is not in this case, but in a suit at law. The petitions were dismissed without prejudice, which was probably done by the court below to avoid interfering with any rights the parties might have to sue for such compensation or other money they may claim. So, without discussing other questions, we will affirm the order. Order affirmed, the appellants to pay the business, and the trust was terminated January 4, 1875, by a decree of court appointing other trustees to sell the property and distribute it among the beneficiaries, and in 1875 the orig REEDER et al. v. LANAHAN et al. (Court of Appeals of Maryland. Nov. 12, 1909.) 1. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS (§ 100*)-FRAUD-inal trustee and his brother formed a new firm DISCOVERY-CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE. Knowledge of trustees, appointed to hold property upon the termination of a prior trust, of the fraudulent concealment by the former trustee of trust property, or want of ordinary diligence to discover such fraud, is imputed to the beneficiaries or those claiming under them, so as to bar an action to compel a reaccounting on the ground of fraud, within the statutory time, under Acts 1868, p. 646. c. 357 (Code Pub. Gen. Laws 1904, art. 57, § 14), requiring such suits to be brought within 3 years from the time the action accrues, provided that, where one having a cause of action had been kept in ignorance by the adverse party, the right of action shall be deemed to have accrued when the fraud is, or, with ordinary diligence could have been, discovered. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Limitation of Actions, Cent. Dig. § 492; Dec. Dig. § 100.*] 2. EQUITY (§ 223*)-PLEADING-DEMURRER GROUNDS-WANT OF EQUITY. A demurrer on the ground that the bill does not state such a case as entitles plaintiff to relief in equity presents a sufficient ground of demurrer, and raises the question of want of equity. [Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Equity, Cent. Dig. § 502; Dec. Dig. § 223.*] 3. TRUSTS (§ 305*)-ENFORCEMENT OF DECREE -PLEADING. In a suit by beneficiaries to compel a reaccounting, and to enforce a decree rendered a number of years prior to the present suit, by which a trustee was directed to surrender the trust property to trustees appointed by the court and account therefor, allegations of the bill in the present action must be disregarded so far as they are inconsistent with the record in the former suit. to continue their father's business, and purchas- Dig. § 423; Dec. Dig. § 305.*] Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore Suit by C. Howard Reeder, Trustee, and others against William Lanahan and others. From a decree dismissing the complaint, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed. PEARCE, SCHMUCKER, BURKE, THOM - Clifton Doll Benson and Thomas Hughes, for appellants. Frank Gosnell and Edgar H. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Trusts, Cent. Gans, for appellees. Dig. § 425; Dec. Dig. § 305.*] 4. TRUSTS ($ 305*)-ENFORCEMENT OF DECREE -PLEADING-FRAUD-GENERAL ALLEGA BURKE, J. The record in this case shows that William Lanahan, Sr., had been for many years engaged in the foreign and domestic liquor business in the city of Baltimore, and that in the latter years of his life his son Samuel J. Lanahan, was associated with him as a partner in the business; the [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Trusts, Cent. copartnership being known as William Lan:Dig. § 425; Dec. Dig. § 305.*] 5. TRUSTS ($ 197*)-SALE OF TRUST PROPERTY -DUTY OF TRUSTEE. Trustees appointed to sell property of a trust estate were bound to obtain from the purchaser the then fair value of the property. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Trusts, Cent. Dig. § 254; Dec. Dig. § 197.*] 6. TRUSTS (§ 305*)-FRAUD OF TRUSTEE-EVI DENCE. That a trustee appointed to sell a large liquor business did not mention a certain trademark and the brands and good will of the business in the schedule of the property sold would not, of itself, justify an inference that they were omitted therefrom for a fraudulent purpose. in a suit by beneficiaries to compel a reaccounting. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Trusts, Cent. Dig. § 426; Dec. Dig. § 305.*] 7. TRUSTS (305*)-ACTION FOR ACCOUNTING -LACHES. The owner of a liquor business conveyed it in trust to his son in 1868, to continue the han & Son. William Lanahan was the owner trustees to be selected, if necessary, by asking their appointment by a court of equity, so that the said daughters would receive the rents, income, and profits derived therefrom during their lives, respectively, and at their deaths the principal to be paid to their children. Second. The portion to which each of the sons would be entitled, if they were minors, should likewise be conveyed and paid over to a trustee or trustees to be invested for their benefit, so that the rents, income, and profits derived therefrom should only be paid over to them until they should, respectively, arrive at the age of 25 years, when they should be entitled to the principal. Third. That if William Lanahan died before the 1st of June, 1874, full power and author tee after that date, but not before, for the purpose of making a division of the estate among those entitled, to sell, dispose of, and convey absolutely any and all of the real or leasehold property that passed under the deed. Fourth. The first stipulation of the deed was a reservation to Thomas M. Lanahan, a brother of the grantor, to wind up and have discontinued the business earlier than the 1st of June, 1874, in the event of the death of William Lanahan before that period, if, during the progress of the business, his judgment directed that said business should be wound up. William Lanahan & Son was indebted to Sam- | uel J. Lanahan should convey to a trustee or uel J. Lanahan in the sum of $12,000 for his proportion of profits to that date, and no more. (2) That said firm was then and there dissolved, but that, whilst William Lanahan withdrew from the active participation of business, the same should be continued and carried on under the same firm name for a period of 6 years from the 1st day of June, 1868, by Samuel J. Lanahan, he using to that end all the property of every kind and description, save and except the real estate of William Lanahan, in any manner he deemed necessary for the successful prosecution of the business, until the 1st day of June, 1874. (3) That Samuel J. Lanahan was entitled to receive, from the 1st day of June, 1868, and during the stipulated time named in the agreement, one-fourth of the net profits deity was given to Samuel J. Lanahan as trusrived from the business from his labor, a compensation for his responsibility in the premises, and the remaining three-fourths were to be paid over by him to William Lanahan at such times and in such manner as he required the same, and in the event of the death of said William Lanahan prior to the 1st day of June, 1874, Samuel J. Lanahan was to continue in possession of the real and personal property that passed under the deed, to be held by him upon the following trusts: (a) He was to continue the conduct of the business until the 1st day of June, 1874, and the profits derived therefrom in the meantime between the period of the death of William Lanahan and the 1st of June, 1874 (after deducting his own one-fourth), were to be divided into equal proportions among the seven children of the said William Lanahan, viz., Mary C. Lanahan, William Lanahan, Jr., Josephine Lanahan, Charles M. Lanahan, Emma Lanahan, Harry W. Lanahan, and Gertrude M. Lanahan. (b) That out of said profits and assets of the business, and out of the property, if necessary, Samuel J. Lanahan should liberally and amply provide for the maintenance, support, and education of his brothers and sisters, all of whom at that time were minors under 21 years of age, (c) That on the 1st day of June, 1874, the business as conducted by Samuel J. Lanahan should be wound up and brought to a close, and the interest of the respective parties accurately ascertained, and, if William Lanahan had died before the 1st day of June, 1874, the property, real, personal, and mixed, that passed under the deed was to be divided equally between the eight children of William Lanahan, and all profits made in the business of William Lanahan & Son, from the date of the deed of trust up to the 1st of June, 1874, after deducting the one-fourth interest of Samuel J. Lanahan, were to be divided equally between the remaining seven children of William Lanahan mentioned above in the following manner subject to the following restrictions and provisions: First. The portion to which each of the daughters Immediately upon the execution and delivery of the deed Samuel J. Lanahan took possession of all the property that passed thereunder, and continued the business in which he and his father had been engaged until the 1st day of June, 1874, as provided in the deed of trust. William Lanahan was then dead, having departed this life on the 8th of August, 1868. The time had now arrived for winding up the business, and for dividing the estate that had passed under the deed, as well as all profits arising from the conduct of the business, among the parties entitled thereto. For this purpose full power had been given Samuel J. Lanahan, trustee, by the deed to sell all the real and leasehold property; but he declined to exercise the power, preferring that the division should be made through the intervention of a court of equity. Before there could be a division of the profits of the business from June 1, 1868, to the 1st day of June, 1874, it was necessary that a careful examination should be made of the books containing the record of the business, and that Samuel J. Lanahan as trustee should render an account of all the dealings in the management of the business. necessary that he should account for all property that had passed to him under the deed, or which belonged to the trust estate. During the conduct of the business by Samuel J. Lanahan as trustee it was not deemed advisable that letters of administration should be taken out upon the estate of William Lana settlement and division of his estate, such | profits accruing from the business up to the letters were granted to Thomas M. Lanahan and Oliver Reeder. 1st day of June, 1874, and, secondly, that all the real estate might be sold and the proceeds thereof brought into court for distribution among the parties entitled thereto. The answer of Samuel J. Lanahan, individually and as trustee, admitted the allegations of the bill to be true, and filed three schedules, marked "Exhibits A," "B," and "C," which he stated contained accurate and just statements of the facts therein set forth. Exhibits A and B are here transcribed: On the 24th of September, 1874, a bill was filed in the circuit court of Baltimore city by Thomas M. Lanahan and Oliver Reeder, administrators of William Lanahan deceased, and by Oliver Reeder in his own right, and Mary C. Reeder, his wife, and Josephine Lanahan and William Lanahan, Jr., and wife against Samuel J. Lanahan individually and as trustee, and all the other children and heirs at law of William Lanahan, deceased. This bill, after reciting substantially the facts we have stated, charged that the real estate of William Lanahan, deceased, could not be equally and fairly proportioned or divided among the parties entitled thereto without a sale thereof, and that it would be to the interest, benefit, and advantage of all the parties, adults as well as infants, first, to have the profits ascertained and the business closed up, and the estate of William Lanahan properly divided among his children according to the terms and directions of the deed of trust, and, secondly, Open accounts.. Exhibit A. Property Turned Over to Samuel J. Lanahan, Trustee, by the Deed of William Lanahan, Executed June 8, 1868: Cash Bills receivable.. .$ 19,360 98 14,356 06 95,785 11 18.864 58 Store building Light street.. Mdse. on hand....... Do. in bond.... 30,863 33 5,835 67 $200,065 73 Liabilities. to have the real estate sold for that purpose; s. J. Lanahan......... 5,486 64 12,000 00 17,486 64 $182,579 03 Exhibit B. court of equity, first, because of the infancy Assets and Property of the Firm of William Lanahan & Sons, August 31, 1874. of some of the parties, and, secondly, be- Bills receivable... Store fixtures.. .$ 2,853 34 9,743 00 124,890 77 24,407 51 200 00 Warehouse on Light street...... 30,000 00 Lot on Light street... 10,000 00 Dwelling lot & furniture Lex- 15,000 00 $217,094 82 The relief prayed for in the bill was, first, that Samuel J. Lanahan, as trustee, should render a full, accurate, and reliable schedule or schedules of all the property, not only that had passed to him under the deed of trust as of the date thereof, but also as of the date of the death of William Lanahan, and of the 1st day of June, 1874, and that he should render full and accurate account or accounts of all his transactions as trustee in the conduct and management of the business from the 1st day of June, 1868, to the 1st day of June, 1874, under the provisions of the deed and agreement aforesaid, The evidence of Samuel J. Lanahan and in order that there might be an ascertain- John Thomas Washburne was taken under ment and division of the profits, if any, a commission. Mr. Lanahan testified that made in the conduct of said business, and Exhibit A, filed with his answer, was a true, that Samuel J. Lanahan might be required accurate, and faithful account of the propto deliver over to the administrators of erty turned over to him by the deed of June William Lanahan, deceased, all personal 8, 1868; that it was taken from the books property which came into his hands under of William Lanahan & Sons, and that he and by virtue of the provisions of the deed took stock at the time of receiving the deed of trust, and which had not been sold or in order to ascertain what property was otherwise disposed of, or, if sold, that he be turned over to him by his father. He furrequired to pay over to said administrators ther testified that Exhibit B was a correct the proceeds of such sale, or account to said statement of the assets and property of Wiladministrators for the same, and that like- liam Lanahan & Son as of the 31st of Auwise that he should be required to account gust, 1874, and that the property was then to and pay over to the administrators all in his hands as trustee, and that the books |