Harding v. Schapiro

Burke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Mary Mercer Harding', the wife of Charles H. Harding, died at Vienna, Austria, in September, 1904. By her last will and testament, which was dated July 6th, 1901, and admitted to probate in the Orphans’ Court for Baltimore City on the 26th day of September, 1904, Charles H. Harding, a lesident of Baltimore City and the husband of the testatrix, was granted letters testamentary upon her estate. Her will contained the following bequests: “To my nieces, Alma Schapiro and Vera Schapiro, I leave the sum of $5,000.00 each, to be held in trust for them by the Safe Deposit and Trust Company and invested by it, and the principal and all income held until their majority.

In the event of the death of either niece, the portion of said niece to go to my husband, Charles H. Harding.” Alma Schapiro, one of the legatees, was born in Austria and is an Austrian subject. Under the law of Austria she does not attain her majority until the age of twenty-four years; but by a special statutory provision of the Austrian Code the Guardian’s Court, under certain conditions, may declare an infant to be of full age who has completed his or her twen ⁵⁴³ tieth year. When this declaration has been made in conformity to the act it “has precisely the same legal effect as the actual attainment of majority.” On April 2nd, 1910, after she had attained the age of twenty years, the Appropriate Court of the Empire of Austria in pursuance of the Code declared and decreed that Alma Schapiro had attained her legal majority. After she had reached the age of twenty-one years, she filed a bill of complaint in the Circuit Oourt No. 2 of Baltimore City, against Charles H. Harding and the Safe Deposit and Trust Company, trustee as aforesaid, praying particularly for the construction of the above quoted clause of Mrs. Harding’s will, and for an account of the legacy and income in the hands of the trustee, and that the net proceeds be paid over to her by the trustee free of the trust.

After setting out the facts above stated, the bill charged that for al] purposes whatsover she had attained her full legal majority by the laws of Austria, and having also attained the age at which a female ward is entitled under the laws of Maryland to receive a legacy given her by last will and testament and to execute a legal release therefor, she was entitled to have paid over and transferred to her absolutely and free from the trust the said legacy and accumulated interest, less such proper allowances as a trustee might he entitled to. The bill further alleged that Charles H. Harding, who by the terms of the will is entitled to the legacy in the event of the death of the plaintiff, denied her right to receive the same, because he contended that by the true construction of the will the plaintiff was not entitled to receive the legacy until she attains the age of twenty-four years, — that being the date at which the plaintiff’s majority is fixed by the general law of Austria. The Safe Deposit and Trust Company, Trustee, filed an answer, submitting the determination of all questions involved and the construction of the above-quoted clause of the will to the decision of the Oourt. It also filed a schedule or ⁵⁴⁴ statement of the trust property in its hands as trustee for the plaintiff.

The answer stated that the question, whether according to the terms of the will, the legacy became payable to the plaintiff upon her attaining the age of eighteen years, or will become payable to her upon her attaining the age of twenty-one years, or the age or twenty-four years, or upon the entry of such decree by the Austrian Court emancipating her, are legal questions involving the construction of the will, as well as the meaning and effect of foreign laws, and that, as trustee for both of the parties in interest, it submitted these questions to the determination of the Court. It admitted that it had refused to pay the legacy to the plaintiff until said questions had been first determined by some competent Court. Charles H. Harding filed an answer and cross-bill. The cross bill asked that the legacy to the plaintiff be declared void, or, if the Qourt, should be of opinion that it was not void, then that a decree be passed declaring that the plaintiff was not entitled to receive the legacy until she had reached the age of twenty-four years.

The plaintiff excepted to the fifth and sixth paragraphs of the answer, and demurred to the whole cross bill. The defendant petitioned the Court to amend the fifth paragraph of the answer, and' leave was granted to make the amendment. The Court sustained the demurrer to the cross bill and it was dismissed. It also sustained the demurrer to the fifth and sixth paragraphs as amended.

The defendant then, by leave of the Court, filed an amended answer and another cross bill. The eighth paragraph of the plaintiff’s bill set up the Austrian decree above referred to declaring her of full legal age, and the real defense to this suit is disclosed by the fifth paragraph of the amended bill and the fourth paragraph of the new cross bill, which prays: First, that the legacy to the plaintiff be declared void; and secondly, that it be not void, that a decree may be passed declaring that by the true construction of the will of Mrs. Harding the plaintiff is not entitled to receive ⁵⁴⁵ said legacy until the expiration of the twenty-fourth year of her life. The fifth paragraph of the amended answer is as follows: (5) -“That in response to the eighth paragraph of said bill, this defendant says he is not informed thereon, and therefore neither admits nor denies the same, but calls for full proof thereof, and further answering the said paragraph this defendant says that, if any such decree as in said paragraph of said bill set forth, has been passed by the Court therein mentioned, the said decree was obtained in a cause to which this defendant was not a party and of which he had no notice, and upon the representation of the said plaintiff and her mother and guardians in the said paragraph mentioned, that she desired to go to the United States of America on account of her health, and that the said Court was not informed that the said decree might in anyway affect the rights of said plaintiff or the rights of this defendant with respect to a legacy contained in a will of a citizen of the United States (though this defendant does not admit but on the contrary denies that said decree can have any such effect) ; and this defendant further avers that said decree if passed as stated in said bill, which he does not admit, was obtained by wilful and fraudulent suppression of the true facts in this case whereby the said Court was deceived, and this defendant further says that by the laws of Austria said decree as set forth in said bill, being merely a declaration that said plaintiff is of full age, without regard to the true age does not, and by said laws of Austria can not, have the effect of entitling the plaintiff to said legacy before she has arrived at the age of twenty-four years; and further that by said laws said Court has no jurisdiction to pass any decree of declaration of majority whose effect would be to entitle said plaintiff to said legacy before she has arrived at the age of twenty-four years.” The fourth paragraph of the cross bill is as follows: (4) “That if notwithstanding the advice given by your srator as hereinbefore set forth and the matters and facts ⁵⁴⁶ hereinbefore alleged, this Honorable Court shall be of opinion that said Alma Sehapiro is and your orator is not entitled to said legacy, still as your orator is advised and therefore alleges, said Alma Sehapiro is and always has been a citizen and resident of Austria and subject to its laws, and that she has not yet attained the age of. twenty-four years, and that by said laws of Austria she will not attain her majority until she has arrived at the age of twenty-four years, and that if any such decree as is in said bill of said Alma Sehapiro set forth has been passed by the Austrian Court therein mentioned (which your orator does not admit), then by the laws of Austria said decree, being as is alleged in said bill, merely a declaration that said Alma Sehapiro is of full age without regard to her true age, does not and can not have the effect of entitling said Alma Sehapiro to said legacy before she has arrived at the age of twenty-four years; and further that by said laws said Court has no jurisdiction to pass any decree or declaration of age whose effect would be to entitle said plaintiff to said alleged legacy before she has arrived at the age of twenty-four years.” The plaintiff excepted to the whole amended answer and to the fifth paragraph thereof, and demurred to the whole second cross bill. The demurrer to the cross bill was sustained and it was dismissed.

The exceptions to the whole amended answer were sustained, and leave to further amend the'answer was refused. A commission was issued to Charles Denby, residing in Austria, to take the testimony of certain witnesses, and under it the depositions of the plaintiff, her mother, and Dr. Victor Heindl, an Austrian attorney, were taken and returned. A duly authenticated copy of the Austrian decree referred to was filed. The deposition of Charles H. Harding was also taken which showed that Mrs. Harding knew that under the Austrian law the age of majority was twenty-four years. ⁵⁴⁷ It appears from the depositions that the plaintiff was born at Vienna on February 23rd, 1900, and has since resided there and in other parts of Austria; that her father is now dead, and that he was an Austrian subject; that her mother is living and that Mrs. Harding was an aunt of the plaintiff.

It is also shown that by the 252d section of the Civil Code of Austria it is provided that: “The Court having guardianship jurisdiction may, after obtaining the approval of the guardian and in all events also of the nearest relatives, grant to a minor, who has passed his twentieth year, dispensation from the disabilities of age, and declare him to be of full age. If the carrying on of a business or trade is permitted to a minor by the authorities, then in such case he is thereby declared at the same time of age. The declaration of full age has altogether like legal effect as the actual attainment of majority.” In conformity with the approval of her mother and her guardian and co-guardian, Dr. Rudolph Jahn, hy decree of Court the plaintiff was declared to be of majority by dispensation of age. The plaintiff stated in her deposition that her mother and guardian applied to have her declared of legal age, because her guardian wished to be released from his duties and to leave Vienna on account of his health, referring evidently to Dr. Jahn; and that she had to declare verbally that she knew what she was doing; that one of her objects in obtaining the decree was to be able to secure this legacy before the age of twenty-four years, although that was not her principal object; that she did not inform the Court of the provision of the will of Mrs. Harding, and that the nature of the provision now before the Court was not called to the attention of that Court.