Maryland case law › Hollyday v. Hollyday

Hollyday v. Hollyday

74 Md. 458 (1891) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: ReversedBriscoe, J.✓ Good law
HoldingThis appeal sought construction of the will of Henrietta M.

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case is for the purpose of obtaining a construction- of the will of Henrietta M. Hollyday, deceased, and of certain codicils thereto. The will was executed on the 20th day of May, 1887. The first and second codicils were executed on the 14th day of April, 1890, and the third codicil on the 20th of the same month.

The first clause of the will contains the follow 465 ing bequest: “It is my will that tbe interest or income arising from tbe sum of four thousand dollars of the funds of money now in the hands of Mrs. Richard C. Hollyday,. living at Ratcliffe, Talbot County, in the State aforesaid, belonging to me, and for which funds and the interest thereon I hold the obligations of Richard C. Hollyday, deceased, her husband, shall be paid over to my sister, Rebecca H. Hollyday, so lohg as she shall live, and at her death the said sum of four thousand dollars shall be divided and disposed of as follows, to wit: Two thousand thereof I then give to my nephew, Richard C. Hollyday, the son of my brother, Richard C. Hollyday, deceased; one thousand dollars to my nephew, Clarence Hollyday; five hundred dollars to my nephew, Richard Hollyday, of Readburne; two hundred dollars to Mrs. Richard 0. Hollyday, of Ratcliffe; two hundred dollars to my niece, Meta Hollyday; fifty dollars to my niece, Hannie Tilghman; and a like sum of fifty dollars to her son, Walter B. Tilghman.” By the second codicil to her will, she revokes the clause in her will leaving §500 to her nephew, Richard Hollyday, of Readburne, and directs this §500 to be divided equally between said Richard Hollyday and her niece, A. Maria Hollyday. And the third codicil, so far as it bears upon this case, is in these words : “Whereas, by my last will and testa•ment, duly executed and witnessed, I have given to my sister, Rebecca Hollyday, four thousand dollars, I do hereby revoke the said legacy, and instead of four thousand dollars, I hereby give to my said sister, at my death, three thousand dollars. I do hereby revoke the five hundred dollars by my said will to my nephew Richard Hollyday, and do hereby give to my said nephew and to his sister Maria Hollyday the said five hundred dollars, to my said nephew and his sister, Maria Holly-day, to be equally divided between them, ’ ’ &c., &c.

The principal question, then, to be considered by this Court, 466 is how far the first clause of the will is revoked or altered by the third codicil. The questions to be decided having been submitted to the Court belorv in the form of a special case stated, the Court held : 1st. That the legacy of three thousand dollars, bequeathed to Rebecca H. Hollyday by the third codicil to

This is a preview of Hollyday v. Hollyday. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.