Fersinger v. Martin

Collins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Belle H. Fersinger, appellant, filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County a bill of complaint to construe the will of her husband, John Henry Fersinger, and determine the right property and estate of herself, her married daughter, Mary F. Martin, and her minor son, John Henry Fersinger, Jr., the children by her marriage to the said John Henry Fersinger, in the property devised by the deceased in his said will. In her bill.she alleged that the will indicates an absolute devise to her without limitation, but as the contention is made by her daughter and for her son that the will devises only a life estate to her, an ambiguity had arisen making it necessary that she ask the court for a construction thereof; that as a result of said ambiguity, she cannot tell with certainty what she takes under said will and is not in a position to exercise her statutory right of renunciation, if she should so desire, nor is she able to perform her duties as executrix, since she cannot tell what the rights of the various parties are under said will. The pertinent parts of the will are as follows: ¹³⁷ “First: I give and bequeath to my wife, Belle H. Fersinger, all of my personal property and real estate to have and to hold as her own during her life time. “My personal property consists of various and sundry stocks and bonds, and so forth.

My real estate is as follow: * * * “Should my wife, Belle H. Fersinger, pass away before I do, I will and bequeath all my personal property and real estate to my children, Mary Agnes Fersinger, daughter, and John Henry Fersinger, son, and any other children that may be born to this marriage, share and share alike. “Second: In the event of the death of both myself and my wife, I hereby name my daughter, Mary Agnes Fersinger, as guardian for my son, John Henry Fersinger, and should any other children be born, she shall be guardian for same. “Third: I hereby appoint my wife, Belle H. Fer-singer, the sole executor of this will, revoking all former Wills by me made.” (Italics supplied here.) After answers filed, a stipulation was filed by the parties to the cause containing the testimony of one Samuel A. Troxell, the draftsman of the will, not an attorney, as to the instructions given him by the testator as to how the will should be drawn and the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will. The testimony of the complainant, Belle H. Fersinger, as to the instructions given the draftsman by the testator and circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, was also contained in the stipulation, the defendants objecting to this testimony by reason of Code, 1939, Art. 35, Sec. 3, that “* * * no party to the cause shall be allowed to testify as to any transaction had with, or statement made by the testator * * The chancellor decreed that the wife, Belle H. Fer-singer, received by the will a life interest in his entire estate after the payment of any just claims against the same; and, in regard to the remainder, at the expiration of her said life estate, he died intestate. The wife, Belle ¹³⁸ H. Fersinger, appeals to this court from that decree both individually and as executrix, she having been allowed by the chancellor as executrix to be made a party to the proceeding. The law requires the will to be in writing, to express the testamentary purpose and wish of the testator.

It is necessary that the intention of the testator be gathered from the face of the writing or as has often been said “from the four corners of the will.” The intention cannot be supplied by extrinsic proof. Where the intention of the testator clearly appears from his words, no extrinsic proof is admissible. Extrinsic evidence should not be admitted to show that the testator meant something different from what his language imports. Negro Cesar v. Chew, 7 Gill & J. 127; Frick v. Frick, 82 Md. 218, 222 , 33 A. 462 ; Shipley v. Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co., 102 Md. 649, 658 , 62 A. 814 ; Lowe v. Whitridge, 105 Md. 183, 188 , 65 A. 926 ; Schapiro v. Howard, 113.

Md. 360, 368, 369, 78 A. 58 , 140 Am.St.Rep. 414 ; Cassily v. Devenny, 168 Md. 443, 449 , 177 A. 919 . What he meant to say must be gathered from what he did say. Zimmerman v. Hafer, 81 Md. 347 , 32 A. 316 ; Childs’ Estate v. Hoagland, 181 Md. 550 , 30 A. 2d 766 . The will