Maddox v. Yoe

Burke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. William M. Maddox, of Prince George’s County, Maryland, died in the year 1885. He left surviving him neither wife, child, nor descendants. Two brothers and five sisters survived him, all of whom are now dead, except Mary E. Maddox.

The appellee in this case is a nephew of William M. Maddox, — a son of his sister Ellen D. Yoe, and the appellant is one of the children of his brother, Adderton Máddox. At the time of his death, William M. Maddox was seized and possessed in fee simple of a valuable farm located in Prince George’s County, containing 156 acres of land more or less and called “Val Verde.” He also owned some personal property of small value. He left a last will and testament duly executed, which was admitted to probate in the Orphans’ Court for Prince George’s County, and is now of record in the office of the Register of Wills of that county. The whole of said last will and testament, except the attestation clause, which is in due form, is here transcribed: “I devise and bequeath to my sister, Mary P. Maddox, all my property, real, personal and mixed, wherever situated, for and during the term of her natural life.

And from and after her death I give and devise the same to my niece, Catherine M. Yoe, of Prince George’s County, Maryland, so long as she may remain single and unmarried. And in case of her marriage, from and after that time, give and devise all of my said property to, my nephew, Turner Ashby Maddox, of Claiborne Co., Miss., and to his heirs, absolutely forever.” ²⁹⁰ After the death of William M. Maddox, Catherine M. Yoe by deed dated November 12, 1891, in due form executed and acknowledged, and recorded among the Land Records of Prince George’s County, granted and conveyed all her right, title and interest, and estate to the farm called “Val Verde” to the appellee, William M. Yoe. Catherine M. Yoe is now dead, having remained single and unmarried until her death. Mary E. Maddox, named in the will, is still living.

By deed dated September 11, 1912, duly executed, acknowledged and recorded, she granted and conveyed all her right, title, interest and estate in and to the farm called “Val Verde” to the appellee, who is now in full possession of the property, claiming it as his own and asserting a fee simple title thereto ; but he is unable to sell the property or any part thereof, or to fully enjoy the same, because the appellant, Turner Ashby Maddox, claims that under the last will and testament of William M. Maddox the title to said property is vested in him in fee simple, subject to the life estate of Mary E. Maddox. In December, 1912, a- special ease was stated in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County under the 47th General Equity Rule for the construction of the last will and testament of William M. Maddox in which the above stated facts were set forth. The opinion of the Court and a decree in conformity therewith were requested upon the question, whether by the true construction of the will of William M. Maddox and under the facts set forth in the case stated any title or interest, and if so, what title or interest vested either in the appellee, William M. Yoe, or in the appellant, Turner Ashby Maddox, or in each of them to the farm known as “Val Verde.” The lower Court decreed that by the true construction of the will of William M. Maddox, Catherine M. Yoe, her heirs and assigns were vested with a remainder in fee simple in said property determinable upon her marriage; that by her deed, dated November 12, 1912, she conveyed all her right, ²⁹¹ title, interest and estate in and to said property called “Val Verde” to the appellee; and that hy the death of said Catherine, unmarried, and hy the deed from Mary F. Maddox to the appellee of her life estate in said property, “he is seized and possessed of all the rights, title and estate of said testator, William M. Maddox, in and to the said property called Wal Verde.’ ” From this decree Turner Ashby Maddox has appealed. The important question in the case is this: What estate did Catherine M. Yoe take under the will?

That depends upon the proper meaning and legal effect of the words “so long as she may remain single and unmarried” occurring in the devise to her, read in connection with the limitation over contained in the will. It is apparent from the language employed in the will and the environments and circumstances surrounding the testator at the time of its execution that the objects of his bounty were the three persons named in the will, viz: Mary F. Maddox, Catherine M. Yoe and Turner Ashby Maddox. The appellee is not mentioned in the will, and as it is to be presumed that the testator intended to dispose of his whole estate and not to die intestate as to any part of it, we must conclude that he intended that the persons named should take his whole estate to the exclusion of all others. It- is now well settled that a devise or bequest to a woman of an estate in the terms used in this will, with a limitation over in case of marriage, is an estate upon special limitation, and the devise or bequest is valid, since there is in fact no condition in restraint of marriage.

The effect of such a limitation is to circumscribe the duration of the estate devised. The authorities are practically unanimous in support of this proposition. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 29 Md. 581 ; Clark v. Tennison, 33 Md. 85 ; Trenton Trust Co. v. Armstrong, 62 Atl. Rep. 456 ; Burch’s Estate, 185 Pa.

St. 194; Nash v. Simpson, 78 Me. 142 ; Harlow v. Bailey, 189 Mass. 208 ; Courier v. Stagg, 21 N. J. Eq. 305, and many other cases. ²⁹² It is conclusively settled by the American and English cases that such limitations in a devise to a widow vests in the devisee a life estate only subject to be defeated upon her marriag'e. In Sink v. Sink, 64 S. E. Rep. 193 , the Supreme Court of Xorth Carolina had under consideration an item in a will which read as follows: “I give and bequeath to my beloved wife, Mahaley, the remainder of my land, after selling off, as directed in the 10th item, whatever there may be remaining, to have and to hold to her own proper use and behoof, to embrace my mansion house and other out houses and improvements of the land I now live on, during the term of her widowhood, and after her marriage to be equally divided between my brother and sisters or t-heir legal representatives share and share alike.” The Court said: “We are of opinion that the estate in the land devised to the widow could not endure beyond her life. Blackstcne says that, if an estate be granted to a woman during her widowhood or to a man until he be promoted to a benefice, in these and similar cases, whenever the contingency happens, or when the widow marries, or when the grantee obtains ■a benefice, the respective estates are absolutely determined and gone. Yet, while they subsist, they are reckoned estates for life; because, the time for which they will endure being uncertain, they may by possibility last for life, if the contingences upon which they are to determine do not sooner happen. 2nd Blk. 121.

In Fuller v. Wilbur, 170 Mass. 506 , 49 N. E. 916 , the devise was as follows: 'I give and bequeath to my beloved wife, all my real and personal estate of whatever name, for her sole use and benefit so long as she remains ray widow, except the legacies to my children.’ With reference to this devise the Court, by Moetoht, J., said: 'The first question in these cases is: What interest did the widow of Elijah Wilber take under her husband’s will ? There is some ground, perhaps, for saying that, with the exception of the ²⁹³ legacies to her children, she took the entire estate absolutely and in fee, subject to be divested if she married again; but we think that the better construction, and the one which is according to the weight of authorities here and elsewhere, is that, she took a life estate determinable on the happening