The appellants brought a hill in equity against the appellee, in which it is in effect alleged that on September 14, 1910, the defendant, Lillian Mayrue Gosser, executed to Vincent Eidgely a mortgage upon a certain lot of land, to secure a loan; that on November 1; 1911, Lillian Mayrue Gosser executed to Ella C. Chamberlain, a mortgage on the same premises; that on March 6th, 1912, Lillian Mayrue Gosser executed and delivered to
The prayer is for an accounting and payment through sale if necessary and for general relief.
To this bill of complaint the following demurrer was interposed:
“1. That there is no equity in complainants’ bill of complaint.
2. Because complainants in their said bill of complaint have not alleged such matters and things therein, or shown such matters and things by the exhibits attached to said bill of complaint and made a part thereof, as entitles said complainants to be subrogated to the rights of Vincent
3. Because so far as appears from the allegations of complainants’ bill of complaint and the exhibits attached thereto, and made a part thereof, it appears that the said W, T. Boyd was a mere volunteer in paying off and dis-. charging those two certain mortgages made, one to Vincent Ridgely and the other to Ella C. Chamberlain.
á. Because it appears from complainants’ bill of complaint and the exhibits attached thereto and made a part thereof, that a part of the mortgage indebtedness secured by ■ the ^mortgages sought to be foreclosed by said bill of complaint was paid and discharged prior to the execution by this defendant of the Power of Attorney to W. T. Boyd, which is attached and made a part of the complainants’ bill of complaint, and complainants failed to allege in their said bill what amounts or upon what dates the alleged payment or payments were made by W. T. Boyd on the indebtedness of said mortgages.
5. Because the allegations of said bill of complaint attempting to show subrogation to the rights of the said Vincent Ridgely and Ella C. Chamberlain are mere conclusions of law. '
6. Because said bill of complaint does not show that the said'W. T. Boyd had any interest in the said mortgages, the mortgage indebtedness or the mortgaged premises, dr that this defendant requested him to pay the said mortgages or that there was any contract or understanding between this defendant and W. T. Boyd that he should pay the same.
7. Because there is no allegation in said complainants’ bill of complaint that the said W. T. Boyd, under the
On this demurrer the following order was made:
“The demurrer of the defendant to the bill of complaint in the above cause coming on this day to be heard, and the Court having heard the argument of counsel for the. complainants and the defendant, and the Court being advised,
It is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the said demurrer be .and the same is hereby sustained upon all. grounds of said demurrer, and complainants given leave-to amend bill if they so desire.” The complainants appealed from this order and assigned it as error.
A general demurrer tó a bill in equity as an entirety should not be sustained if any relief may properly be granted in- accordance with the allegations and prayers. See Roberts v. Cypress Lake Naval Stores Co.,
It is clear that Boyd was not a mere volunteer in paying the indebtedness of his cestui que trust, since the payment of such indebtedness was the purpose for which the power of attorney was executed to Boyd.
Even if Boyd is not entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the mortgagees, and even though he paid a portion of the indebtedness before the power of attorney was executed, and even though Boyd did not before his death sell the land as he. was authorized to do, his administrators are entitled to an equitable adjustment of his rights growing out of his bona fide transactions in so far at least as
The order sustaining the demurrer is reversed.
