Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

Harding v. Ja Laur Corp. - 20 Md. App. 209, 315 A.2d 132 (1974)

Rule:

A forger can pass no better title than he has is in full force and effect in the state of Maryland. A forger, having no title, can pass none to his vendee. Consequently, there can be no bona fide holder of title under a forged deed. A forged deed, unlike one procured by fraud, deceit or trickery, is void from its inception. The distinction between a deed obtained by fraud and one that is forged is readily apparent. In a fraudulent deed an innocent purchaser is protected because the fraud practiced upon the signatory to such a deed is brought into play, at least in part, by some act or omission on the part of the person upon whom the fraud is perpetrated. He helps in some degree to set into motion the very fraud about which he later complains. A forged deed, on the other hand, does not necessarily involve any action on the part of the person against whom the forgery is committed. So that if a person has two deeds presented to him, and he thinks he is signing one but in actuality, because of fraud, deceit or trickery he signs the other, a bona fide purchaser, without notice, is protected. On the other hand, if a person is presented with a deed, and he signs that deed but the deed is thereafter altered, for example, through a change in the description or affixing the signature page to another deed, that is forgery and a subsequent purchaser takes no title. 

Facts:

A demurrer to the third Amended Bill of Complaint that had been brought by Mrs. Lucille M. Harding against Ja Laur Corporation, Macro Housing, Inc., a corporation and Montgomery County, Maryland, a municipal corporation, was sustained without leave to amend. The bill alleged that a deed had been obtained from Harding through fraud practiced upon her by the agent of Ja Laur Corporation. The bill further averred that the paper upon which Harding had affixed her signature was "falsely and fraudulently attached to the first page of a deed identified as the same deed" through which the appellee, Ja Laur Corporation, and its assigns, the other appellees, claim title.

Issue:

Did the Bill of Complaint allege a forgery, thus requiring the demurrer to be overruled?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the order sustaining the demurrer. The court determined that the charge that Harding’s signature was written upon a paper, which paper was thereafter unbeknown to her made a part of a deed, if true, demonstrated that there had been a material alteration and hence, a forgery. The court noted that the bill of complaint alleged a forgery of the deed by which the corporation took title from Harding and that allegation, if true, rendered the deed a nullity. The court explained that a demurrer, for the purpose of the demurrer only, had the effect of admitting the truth of the facts alleged in a bill of complaint. The court concluded that the allegation of forgery in the bill of complaint was admitted and the hearing judge should not have sustained the demurrer as to the corporation.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates