Donovan v. Miller

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the court. There are two appeals in this record now before us, and they are taken from a decree of the Circuit Court for Howard County, passed on the 15th day of April, 1920. The decree appealed against is as follows: “It is ordered and decreed this 15th day of April, 1920, by the Circuit Court for Howard County, sitting as a court of equity, for the reasons stated, that the relief prayed in the petition of Joseph L. Donovan, trustee, filed in this cause on February 20th, 1920, be ⁵⁵⁶ and the same is hereby denied; that, in accordance with the prayer of the answer of James Nicholas Miller filed in this cause on March 13th, 1920, the said James Clark and Joseph L. Donovan, trustees in the above entitled cause, be and they are hereby discharged from the further administration and execution of the trust created by the agreement executed by James Nicholas Miller and Catherine B. Miller, dated December 1st, 1919, and filed in this cause, and by the decree of this court passed in this cause on December 18th, 1919, and (in accordance with the agreement of counsel for James Nicholas Miller) that the premium on the bond of said trustees and all costs in this case, to be taxed by the clerk of this court, be paid by the said James Nicholas Miller. And it is further ordered and decreed that the trust created by the said agreement of James Nicholas Miller and Catherine B. Miller, dated December 1st, 1919, and set forth in said decree of this court, dated December 18th, 1919, be and the same is hereby declared to have been revoked and to be at an end.” The first appeal was taken on the 30th of May, 1920, on behalf of Mr. Joseph L. Donovan, one of the trustees in the cause.

The second appeal is by Susan Miller Zepp, Mary Margaret Miller, Catherine Marion Miller and Eleanor© Miller, who are not parties to the cause, and is dated June 12th, 1920. It is clear, we think, that these appeals are not properly before us and will have to be dismissed. The first appeal, it will be seen, is taken by only one of the trastees, and without his co-trustee uniting in the appeal. In Latrobe v. Tiernan, 2 Md. Ch. 480 , it is said: “The general doctrine does