Curtis v. Maryland Baptist Union Ass'n

Johnson, J., delivered the opinion of the court. At the time of his death on October 30th, 1918, Julius T. Hall, of Pocomoke City, Worcester County, Maryland, was advanced in years and unmarried, his nearest relatives being two brothers and a sister. By his last will and testament, dated January 28th, 1916, and duly probated on November 8th, 1920, he undertook to dispose of his estate. The will contained no residuary clause.

He devised his house and lot to his sister, Laura Wimbrow, his farm to a brother, Charles Hall, and one acre of land to the Trustees of the Pocomoke Baptist Congregation. To a niece, Lois Elliott, another parcel of real estate was devised. His tangible property, consisting for the most part of furniture, personal effects, and a small amount of livestock, was bequeathed to various friends and relatives. The bulk of his personal estate comprised securities and cash in bank.

These he dealt with in the fifth and sixth items of his last will and testament as follows: “Fifth, I hereby instruct my executor to put in trust all bonds and cash in bank of which I may die seized and possessed, the annual income from same to be divided equally between my brother, Charles Hall, and sister, Laura Wimbrow, as long as they live, and at the death of either, the survivor to enjoy the whole income for the remainder of his or her life, at which time provision is hereinafter devised. “Sixth, I give to the Maryland Baptist Union Association, after the death of my brother and sister, as set forth in the preceding item, the bonds and money which are left in trust, provided they will raise within twelve months a like amount to build an Orphan’s Home somewhere in the State of Maryland; but if they do not raise an amount to equal the amount in trust in twelve months, ⁴³⁴ I instruct that this amount be left in trust until the income added to the principle shall make a like amount, thus doubling the principle, at which time I give to said Maryland Baptist Union Association to enjoy absolutely, for the purpose of building an Orphan’s home in the State of Maryland.” On September 10th, 1929, the cash and securities thus referred to, amounting to §20,354.61, were by his administrator d.b.n.c.t.a. delivered to the First National Bank of Snow Hill, which had, upon the petition of Maryland Baptist Union Association, been designated by the Circuit Court for Worcester County as trustee to receive the same after the court had assumed jurisdiction. The trustee thus appointed duly qualified and administered the trust until July 12th, 1935, at which time its petition to be discharged was granted, after it had filed an accounting, and subsequently, upon petition of Maryland Baptist Union Association, the Safe Deposit and Trust Company of Baltimore was appointed substituted trustee of the funds in question and is continuing to act as such. Charles Hall, one of the life tenants mentioned in the fifth item of the will, died in June, 1925, and Laura Wimbrow, the other life tenant, died in January, 1932. Both life tenants, as well as Richard F. Hall, a brother of the testator not provided for in the fifth item of the will, left children surviving them, all of whom in February, 1938, filed their petition in the Circuit Court for Worcester County on the equity side thereof, alleging the facts heretofore referred to, including their relationship to the testator and the life tenants under the will and charged (1) that the object of the bequest contained in the sixth item of the will was not included in the corporate powers of the Maryland Baptist Union Association; (2) that the object for which the gift was to be applied was not such as the corporation was organized for, and, therefore, amounted to a trust for an indefinite object; (3) that the bequest was void, because it violated the rule against perpetuities, especially as to remoteness.

The prayers of the petition were (a) that the court decree that the trust ⁴³⁵ created under the will be terminated, and that the bequest over to the Maryland Baptist Union Association be declared null and void, and the substituted trustee be directed to turn over to the plaintiffs, as the next of kin of the testator and the rightful owners thereof, the funds in its possession; and (b) for further relief. To that petition, answers as well as demurrers were filed by the succeeding trustee and Maryland Baptist Union Association, testimony was taken orally before the chancellor, and at the final hearing upon the merits four questions were presented, viz: (1) Whether petitioners were barred by laches in asserting their claim; (2) whether the matter in controversy was res’judicata; (3) whether the bequest violated the rule against perpetuities; and (4) whether the object of the bequest was included within the corporate powers of Maryland Baptist Union Association. The chancellor answered the third inquiry in the negative and the fourth in the affirmative, disregarded questions one and two, passed a decree refusing the relief prayed by petitioners, and dismissed their petition. From that decree this appeal is taken.

The contentions here presented do not arise upon the facts, for, as to these, there is no dispute between the parties. It is also admitted that appellants are the next of kin of the testator, Julius T. Hall. The answers to the questions presented must depend upon the law for their solution, and we will therefore consider the four questions which were before the chancellor in the order previously named. 1. Laches.

Obviously, if the doctrine of laches is applicable in the present case, no other questions need be considered. But in order for it to be invoked successfully there must be not only mere delay, but delay that works a disadvantage to the party against whom relief is sought. Necessarily, each case is dependent upon its own facts and circumstances. For this reason instances may arise justifying its application when the matters upon which relief is sought arose within a period far short of the time within which the Statute of Limitations ⁴³⁶ might ordinarily constitute a defense in an action at law, while in others laches will not be applied, although the grounds for relief would, standing alone, be barred by limitations. 4 Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, sec. 1442; 19 Amer.

Jur., page 352; 21 C.J., page 231; Baker v. Cooper, 166 Md. 1 , 170 A. 556 ; Lipsitz v. Parr, 164 Md. 222 , 164 A. 743 ; Mays v. Mays, 176 Md. 159 , 4 A.2nd 121. The surviving life tenant, Mrs. Wimbrow, lived until January, 1932, and, until her death, appellants had no right to possess the funds in question, since until that time all income therefrom was, from the time of her brother’s demise, payable to her. And it may be seriously doubted whether, during Mrs. Wimbrow’s lifetime, appellants were, under the provisions of Code, art. 16, secs. 28-34, entitled to a declaratory decree respecting the funds. In any event such decree would have been obtainable only in the court’s discretion, and it is generally held that the power to pass such decrees is to be exercised with great care and jealousy.

Fleishman v. Bregel, 174 Md. 87 , 197 A. 593 ; Saunders v. Roland Park Co., 174 Md. 188 , 198 A. 269 ; Wahl v. Brewer, 80 Md. 237 , 30 A. 654 . While appellants did not file their petition until approximately six years after the death of the surviving life tenant, it is to be observed that this delay, has in no way prejudiced appellees, nor has their position in any manner changed in the meanwhile. Under such circumstances, courts should be hesitant in applying so strict a doctrine as laches, and thereby preventing appellants’ case from being considered upon its merits, and this is especially true in the present case, because the testimony of appellants, all of whom live beyond the confines of Maryland, negatives the idea that they had the knowledge or means of knowledge of the facts which created the rights here sought to be enforced. See Walters v. Order of Holy Cross, 155 Md. 146 , 142 A. 297 . 2.

Res Judicata. The contention that the matter in controversy is res judicata deserves some consideration, since, like that respecting laches, if upheld, it would com ⁴³⁷ pletely put an end to appellants’ case. The argument advanced is that the Circuit Court for Worcester County, in equity, by assuming jurisdiction of the trust in 1929 and appointing The First National Bank of Snow Hill as trustee, and later upon its resignation appointing Safe Deposit and Trust Company of Baltimore as succeeding trustee, in purely ex parte proceedings, thereby determined the character of the bequest, and its action, as evidenced by those orders, determined and concluded the rights of all parties in interest, including appellants. Several answers to the contention are disclosed by the record, among which are the following: (1) That appellants were not parties to that proceeding; (2) that they are not shown to have had any knowledge thereof or knowledge of other facts which put them on notice as to its existence; (3) that the cause was never adjudicated on its merits.

As stated in 34 C.J. “Judgments,” see. (1405)-2: “To constitute a judgment an estoppel there must be a substantial identity of parties as well as of the subject matter; that is, it is necessary that the parties as between whom the judgment is claimed to be an estoppel must have been parties to the action in which it was rendered, in the same capacities and in the same antagonistic relation, or else they must be in privity with the parties in such former action. This rule, that there must be a substantial identity of parties as well as of the subject matter, is based on the fundamental principle that no man can be deprived of his property except by due process of law, a principle which in the United States has been embodied in the federal constitution and in the constitutions of the several states. In applying the rule the courts have allowed themselves a good deal of latitude, observing the spirit of it rather than the letter, and there are some well recognized exceptions to or modifications of it.” See also Ibid, secs. 1165-1174 (a), 1405-1409-1410; and Trayhern v. Colburn, 66 Md. 277 , 7 A. 459 ; Shryock v. Hensel, 95 Md. 614 , 53 A. 412 ; Parsons v. Urie, 104 Md. 238 , 64 A. 927 ; Murphy v. Coale, 107 Md. 198 , 68 A. ⁴³⁸ 615; Lumpkin v. Lumpkin, 108 Md. 470 , 70 A. 238 ; Feldmeyer v. Werntz, 119 Md. 285, 292 , 86 A. 986 ; Wiley v. McComas, 137 Md. 637 , 113 A. 98 . 3.

Perpetuities. The rule against perpetuities is directed against the vesting of interests at a future date and has no application to interests which are already-vested. Miller, Construction of Wills, sec. 322. And the word “vest,” as used in the law of property, “signifies the fixation of a present right to the immediate or future enjoyment of property.” Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Sheehan, 169 Md. 93, 107 , 179 A. 536, 543 .

The law favors the early vesting of estates, and as a general rule courts will, when there is more than one period mentioned, adopt the earlier one, unless this contravenes the intent of the testator or donor as revealed by the terms of the instrument. Miller, Construction of Wills, sec. 226. The general principle is that “any devise or bequest in favor of a person or persons in esse, whether such persons be individualized or treated as a class, confers an immediately vested interest upon the death of the testator, although the time of possession or enjoyment may be postponed, unless there be some clearly expressed desire or some