Cheston v. Cheston

Fowler, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The late Dr. C. Morris Cheston died in December, 1898. Flis widow, Mrs. Sally C. Cheston, and five infant children survive him. His last will, dated January 13th, 1886, executed in due form to dispose of real estate, was admitted to probate in the Orphans’ Court of Anne Arundel County, on the 6th of December of the same year.

To his son, Edward Murray Cheston, the testator bequeaths his gold watch and chain under certain conditions, and then disposes of the residue of his estate as follows : “All the rest and residue of my property, real, personal and mixed, I give, bequeath and devise to my dear wife, Sally C. Cheston, believing that she will manage it judiciously, and perfectly satisfied that she will make a fair distribution of it among our children at her death.” With the exception of the last paragraph of the will, which confirms and ratifies it and appoints his wife as executrix, the above bequest and residuary clause constitutes the whole will. Mrs. Cheston, believing that, under the residuary clause she was the absolute owner and sole beneficiary of the land owned by her husband at his death, entered into an agreement with her brother-in-law, Dr. D. Murray Cheston, of Philadelphia, to sell to him for $10,000 the old Cheston home, in Anne Arundel County, known as “ Hawthorne Ridge.” The agreement is in writing, and there is no suggestion that it is not. a valid and binding contract, provided Mrs. Cheston takes an absolute title under her husband’s will. The purchaser, Dr. Cheston, has filed a bill for specific performance, and Mrs. Cheston has answered it. She alleges that she entered into the contract with Dr. Cheston in good faith, but she has since been advised that the residuary clause is ambiguous in its terms, and that it possibly creates a trust in favor of her children, and that for this reason she refuses to convey the property in question to the purchaser. ⁴⁶⁷ (Decided June 21st, 1899).