Kloch v. Burger

Alvey, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Louis Senft, a wholesale and retail druggist in the City •of Baltimore, died in May, 1881. Sometime before his death he had purchased of Malcolm Crichton, a distiller, fifty barrels of whiskey, which were stored, and remained ■stored at the time of his death, in the distillery bonded warehouse of Crichton, on Holliday street, and upon which ■the government excise duty had not been paid. The ⁵⁷⁷ deceased left a will, which has been admitted to probate, and which contains the following clause :— “I give and bequeath my stock of medicines, drugs, paints, and furniture belonging to, or contained in my store, Ho. 22 H. Howard street, at the time of my death, to my three clerks in my juesent employ, to be held by them, or their heirs or assigns, in the following proportions, viz., To William Kloch, forty per cent., to Henry Korber, thirty per cent., and to Joseph Taylor, thirty per cent.; with the right and privilege to use and occupy my said store, Ho. 22 H. Howard street, in the same manner as I have done up to my death; provided, however, that they or either of them, as long as they shall occupy said store as above mentioned, pay to my sister, Wilhelmina Burger, or her heirs, as hereinafter directed, a rental of fifty dollars per month.” The first question presented is, whether the fifty barrels of whiskey, so remaining stored in the bonded warehouse, with the excise duty unpaid thereon, passed to the legatees, the three clerks named, under the clause of the will above recited; and if so, the second question is, whether the administrators of the estate of the deceased are bound to pay the duty and to exonerate the whiskey, for the benefit of the legatees.

There can be no question but that the legacy to the three clerks named, is a specific legacy. Stewart vs. Denton, 4 Douglas, 219; Bothamley vs. Sherson, L. R., 20 Eq. Cas., 304. But the question here is one of intention to be ascertained by construction of the clause of the will making the bequest; and the language employed must be interpreted according to its proper acceptation, or . with as near an approach to that acceptation as the context of the will, and the circumstances existing at the time of its execution, fairly allow.

Words descriptive of the subject-matter of the gift are not to be diverted from their ordinary proper sense and meaning, by extrinsic ⁵⁷⁸ proof to show that the testator attached to them some-peculiar meaning of his own. Parol evidence, it is true, is admissible for the purpose of ascertaining what is comprehended in the terms of a given description, referring to-extrinsic facts; but in letting in such evidence the object is not to change the accepted meaning of terms, but only .to ascertain what the description properly comprehends, when read in the light of the extrinsic facts disclosed. 1 Jarm. on Wills, (Rand & Tal. ed.) 739-40, and the authorities there cited. Here the inquiry is, what was properly comprehended in the descriptive terms “my stock of medicines, drugs, etc., belonging to, or contained in my store, No. 22 N. Howard Street, at the time of my death?”