Crisp v. Crisp

Stone, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. That part- of the will of Richard O. Crisp, of Anne Arundel County, that has given rise to the present controversy may be found in the following clauses: “I give and bequeath my farm, situate on Curtis-Creek, in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, unto my wife, Annie E. Crisp, and my brother, Frederick Grafton Crisp, and the survivor of them, and the heirs of such survivor, and their successors, in trust and special confidence, nevertheless, for the following uses and purposes: That my wife, Annie E. Crisp, shall be permitted to use and enjoy said farm and premises and receive therefrom the rents and profits until such time as they shall have an offer of one hundred thousand dollars, ($100,000,) and shall invest fifty thousand dollars of the proceeds of such sale in good and. ¹⁵¹ safe securities under the direction of the Court and pay the interest received from the said fifty thousand dollars, so invested, unto my wife, Annie E. Crisp, during her natural life, and at her death said fifty thousand dollars, or the securities in which tire same may he invested, shall go to and become the property and estate of such person or persons as would, by the now existing laws of the State of Maryland, he entitled to take an estate in fee simple in lands by descent from me, and the heirs, executors, and administrators, of such person or persons, per stirpes and not _per capita.” “But if said farm cannot be sold for the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, within eighteen years from the date of my death, then, and in that event, this trust shall cease, and in that event it is my will that said farm shall go and become the property of such persons as would, by the now existing laws of the State of Maryland, he entitled to take an estate in fee simple in lands by descent from me, and the heirs, executors, and administrators, of such person or persons, per stirpes and noi per capita.” “But if my wife should die before the sale of said farm for one hundred thousand dollars, and before the expiration of eighteen years from the date of my death, 1 desire that the rents and profits of said farm from the date of her death until the expiration of said eighteen years, shall go to my legal heirs. “All the rest and residue of my property, I desire to go and he divided among my legal heirs under the laws of the State of Maryland, in the same way as it would, without a will; subject, however, to the dower interest and distributive share of my wife, in all my property, real and personal, and in said residue.” The farm was sold for the §100,000, the sale duly ratified, and the widow, and those who were the heirs-at-law of Richard O. Crisp at the time of his death, wishing to divide the §50,000 allotted to the widow, between them in ¹⁵² such, manner as to suit themselves, this proceeding has. been instituted. The only question for us to decide is to determine whether the remainder in this $50,000 vested in the heirs of Richard O. Crisp at the time of his death, or at the termination of the life estate of the widow. If the property vested in the heirs of Richard O. at the period of his death then the order of the Court below must be affirmed.

If not until the death of the widow, then it must be reversed. The Court of Appeals has long since announced in the broadest terms the general rule, that the law favors the vesting of estates, and that to make an estate contingent, it must appear from the language used and the nature and circumstances of the case, that the time of payment was made the substance of the gift. That estates will be held to be vested whenever it can be fairly done without doing violence to the language