Collins v. Cambridge Maryland Hospital, Inc.

Boxd, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellants are caveators of a will of Sallie A. Williams, late of Caroline County, and on this appeal they contest the propriety of orders of the Orphans’ Court for that county which overruled an objection to its jurisdiction to determine the standing of the appellees to be admitted as caveatees. The residuary estate of the decedent was by the will in question bequeathed to the “United Charities Hospital of Dorchester County, located at Cambridge, Maryland,” and the “Home for the Aged, located at Easton, Maryland”. And the Cambridge, Maryland, Hospital, Inc., one of the appellees, in its petition to be permitted to intervene as a caveatee, alleged that at the time of the execution of the will its corporate title was “United Charities Hospital Association, of Dorchester County,” and that under its present, amended name it is the same corporation as that first named or intended as residuary legatee.

The Home for Aged Women of Talbot and Caroline Counties, State of Maryland, the other appellee, alleged in its petition for the same purpose that it was located at Easton, Maryland, and is the corporation referred to and intended in the will as residuary ¹¹⁴ legatee under the name and description of “ ‘Home for the Aged/ located at Easton, Maryland”. Orders were passed making the two- corporations caveatees and permitting them to file answers. The appellants, the caveators, then filed a petition praying that these orders be rescinded and that the answers be not received, because those corporations were not the beneficiaries intended; and filed a further paper, in the nature of a plea to- the jurisdiction of the court, denying power in an orphans’ court to determine whether such intervening corporations were parties in interest who could properly be admitted as caveatees, because- such a determination would involve a construction of the will and ascertainment of the intention of the testator in its clauses. Upon this second petition by the caveators the court rescinded its previous orders complained of, received answers by the corporations to that petition, held a hearing, and by a further order overruled the objection to its jurisdiction.

Prom that order the appeal is taken. And the question argued is solely that of the- jurisdiction of the orphans’ court to determine- whether the corporations are those intended in the will, and so parties in interest to contest a caveat. And this court concurs in the conclusion of the orphans’ court that it had that jurisdiction. While it is true that no power has been conferred upon orphans’ courts, in terms, to construe wills, and they have been forbidden by statute to exercise under pretext of incidental power or- constructive authority any jurisdiction not expressly conferred by law (Code, art. 93, sec. 271), it has been recognized by this court that construction of wills is sometimes involved in the exercise of powers expressly conferred.

Miller, Construction of Wills, sec. 5. “To- say generally that it (an orphans’ court) possesses no power to construe