Kneisley v. Kneisley

⁴⁷⁰ Stockbridge, J., delivered tlie opinion of the Court. At the argument of this case that which was most dwelt upon by the counsel for the Appellant was whether there had been an equitable conversion from realty to personalty of ceay tain property belonging to the testator, Joseph H. Kneisley. The clause of the will out of which the controversy has arisen is as follows: “Item 4. I direct my executor, hereinafter named, as soon as convenient after my death, to sell all my personal property, except the bureau and the Montross Metal Casket Company stock hereinbefore bequeathed to Erank H. Kneisley and Daisy I. Kneisley, respectively; and I do hereby authorize and direct my executor, as soon as convenient after my death, to sell and dispose of all real estate I may have at the time of my death, subject to the following terms of payment: the purchaser or purchasers to pay two-thirds of the purchase price of said real estate at once, and the other one-third of the purchase price to remain in said property and as a charge upon said real estate as long as my wife shall live, the purchaser or purchasers to pay to my said wife the interest on said remaining one-third of the purchase price at the rate of five (5) per cent, per annum, to be paid' quarterly, so long as she may live, and at the death of my said wife the said remaining one-third of said purchase price to be paid to my executor by said purchaser or purchasers, and to be disposed of by my said executor as imovided herein for the rest and residue of my estate as hereinafter set forth, and to go to the persons taking said rest and residue of my estate as hereinafter set forth, the said remaining one-third of said purchase price and all interest thereon accruing as aforesaid to be charge and lien on said real estate until finally paid over to my executor after the death of my said wife.” An examination of the entire will indicates the purpose of the testator to blend his personal estate and the proceeds of ⁴⁷¹ his real estate, so as to facilitate the carrying out of the provisions of his will.

There is no room for doubt. The rule of law in regard to equitable conversion has been repeatedly laid down by this Court. Sloan v. Safe Deposit Co., 73 Md. 239 ; Stake v. Mobley, 102 Md. 408 ; Lambert v. Morgan, 110 Md. 28 . This is in entire harmony with what has been held in other jurisdictions.

The view of the courts elsewhere is clearly and concisely stated in 6 R. C. L., p. 1087, and 13 Corpus Juris, p. 854. The question presented by the record in this case is radically different from that discussed by the counsel for the appellants. What occurred was this: Mrs. Adaline