Helfrich v. Yockel

³⁷² Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The record in this' case discloses that Frederick Yockel, on the seventh day of 'October, 1922, executed his will, in which he directed his executor to sell all the real estate owned by him at the time of his death and to pay one-third of the proceeds therefrom to his wife and the other twe-thirds to hie son, Charles A. Yockel, the appellee, and his daughter, Marjorie, share and share alike. His personal property he gave to his wife, son -and daughter, in the same proportions, and concluded 'his will by appointing William Q. Helfrich, the appellant, to serve as his executor without bond. On the 29th day of November, 1922, the day of 'his death, Frederick Yockel executed a codicil to his will, whereby he revoked the appointment of William GL Helfrich as executor, and named his son, Charles A. Yockel, the appellee, to serve in that capacity.

The codicil made no other change in the will. On December 5th the will and codicil were filed for probate in the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore County, and on the same day the appellant filed his petition eaveating the codicil to the will. The appellee, answering the petition, alleged among other things that the appellant had no interest in the estate of .the testator entitling him to caveat the codicil. After a hearing the court passed its order of December 14th, dismissing the petition and caveat on the ground that the appellant had- “no right or interest in the property or estate of said testator necessary to maintain suit to caveat the codicil to the will.” It was from that order that the appeal in this case was taken.

In some of the states the statutes provide that “any person having an interest” is entitled to institute caveat proceedings, yet in those states we find the decisions are not in harmony. ³⁷³ The diversity of conclusions arises largely from the difference in views as to what is meant by the term “any person having an interest.” In. some jurisdictions the courts have held that by such term is meant that t'ha caveator shall have .an interest in the property of the testator in the event the will is annulled, while iu other jurisdictions a much broader interpretation has been placed upon the term “any person having an interest.” In Re Courson, 4 N. J. Equity, 408, it was said that by such term was meant “'ail persons who might be injured by admitting a. will or codicil to probate.” In Elmore v. Stevens, 174 Ala. 228 , and Stephens v. Richardson, 189 Ala. 360 , the term “any person interested” was interpreted to mean “any one who hasi an interest to be conserved by defeating the probate of a, will or to be jeopardized by its establishment,” but in the later case in the same court of Braasch v. Worthington, 191 Ala. 210 , the court said that the phrase “any- person, interested,” as used in the-statute permitting1 Contest of a will by any person interested therein, does not mean simply any person who is named as a 'beneficiary in the will, but, rather, any person who has a direct interest in the estate disposed of by the will; in other words, that the interest intended is not literally an interest in the will itself, but in its operation; and that a contestant of a. will must have some direct legal or equitable interest in the decedent’s estate in privity with him, such as heir, purchaser or beneficiary under another will, which would be destroyed or injuriously affected by the establishment of the contested will.” The statutes of this State do not define the class of persons who are entitled to maintain caveat proceedings, but this-Court has done so- in a number of decisions, including Brewer v. Barrett, 58 Md. 587 ; Munnikhuysen v. McGraw, 57 Md. 172 ; Safe Deposit and Trust Co. v. Devilbiss, 128 Md. 182 . ³⁷⁴ In Brewer v. Barrett (supra) this 'Court said: “It is clear that a stranger or one having no interest in the property of a testator has no right to caveat his will. Interest in the property is the very foundation of the right to caveat,” 'and in Safe Deposit and Trust Co. v. Devilbiss (supra) the court said, speaking through Judg-e Thomas, “It would seem clear upon principle that only those who have an interest in the property of the testator in the event the will is annulled are entitled to caveat his will or to issues relating to its validity, and that the right of caveators to maintain their suit should be established before such issues are transmitted to a court of law