Maryland case law › Martin v. Erdman

Martin v. Erdman

124 Md. 668 (1915) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedPattison, J.✓ Good law
HoldingThis is an ejectment suit in which both the plaintiff, Susannah R.

Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant in an ejectment suit. The plaintiff, as well as the defendant, claims title from their father, Adam G. Erdman. One Peter Erdman by his last will and testament, probated the 6th day of May, 1833, in the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City, devised unto his two sons, Mathias and the said Adam Gottlieb Erdman, two adjoining lots of land situated on the Belair Road, in Baltimore County, Maryland, one lot containing eleven acres and two roods, and the other three and one quarter acres, as stated in the will. 669 Adam G. Erdman thereafter acquired by deed from Jane Dew and others, dated October 7, 1841, a lot of land, containing twelve acres and thirty-six square perches, adjoining on the east the said lands devised as aforesaid to him and his brother Mathias.

On the twenty-third, day of June, 1853, his brother Mathias conveyed to him his undivided one-half interest in said lands devised as aforesaid to them by their father, and subsequently, on the 7th day of June, 1870, Adam G. Erdman acquired another lot of land adjoining on the west the lands so devised to him and his brother, containing six acres three roods and twenty-seven perches of land. It was upon the lands so acquired by him that Adam G. Erdman resided. The dwelling-house was upon the lands devised as aforesaid to him and his brother. Just when Adam G. Erdman first made his home there is not disclosed by the evidence.

The plaintiff in her testimony says that she was born in 1846 and she lived with her father until 1865, and that as long as she could remember he had lived at such place. Another daughter, Mary Elizabeth Jenkins, who was born in 1837, testified that she, too, lived with her father until she was married, and that she frequently visited him up to the time of his death, and that he had lived upon this land as long as she could remember, and that he had worked all this property, consisting of the various lots mentioned above, as one, without any division fence between any of them. Another daughter, Louisa Christopher, testified that she never knew her father to live anywhere else, except when he was rebuilding his dwelling that was burned in 1848. It is most probable that his residence there commenced very shortly after the death of his father in 1833, and that he was residing at that place at the time of the conveyance of the lands by Jane Dew in 1841.

Adam, G. Erdman had other children and owned other lands, situated on the Harford Road, Philadelphia Turnpike and elsewhere, as disclosed by his will, but these do not concern us in deciding this appeal. 670 By Ms will, dated the 10th day of May, 1876, and probated November, 1878, he devised all of his estate, real and personal, to Ms wife, for and during her natural life, and upon her death it. went to his different children as therein devised. In item second we find the following devise to the defendant, John G. Erdman: “I give, devise and bequeath unto my son, John G. Erdman, his heirs and assigns, my Home Place, situated on the southeast side of the Belair Road, including a lot purchased by me from William Olaggett’s estate and adjoining the Home Place, with all the improvements thereon, and containing in all about twenty-five acres of land, more or less; provided, however, that my said son, John G. Erdman, pay to my estate within twelve months after the death of my wife the sum of five thousand dollars.” In the fifth item is found the following devise to his daughter, the plaintiff: “I give, devise and bequeath to my daughter, Susannah R. Martin,' her heirs and assigns, my lot of ground with all the improvements thereon, being a two-story and attic frame dwelling, etc., situated on the southeast side of the Belair Road, fronting three hundred and forty feet on said road to a stone and running back about nine hundred feet to a county lane, and fronting on said lane three hundred feet, and was purchased by me from the widow Dew and others, and the sum of one thousand dollars in cash.” The decision of this case depends entirely upon the construction to be given to the sections of the will that we have quoted. In construing this will these items must be considered together and in

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