McCormick v. Mitchell

Bond, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Martha S. McCormick,, as a beneficiary under the will of A. Octavia G. Sawyer, late of Harford County, applied to the circuit court of that county to have it assume jurisdiction over the administration of a trust under the will by Noble L. Mitchell, the trastee, and prayed that the' trust fund be invested in good mortgages or other securities ,and that the trustee be required to give bond. A decree was passed accordingly, on March 14th, 1923. And on June 15th, 1923, the trustee filed a first report and account, at the end of which be added a paragraph declaring that he had administered the trust faithfully and so as to yield the best possible results for 'the beneficiaries, and that he regretted the- reduction of income which would follow the change of securities demanded, to pay the annual premium on his bond, and for court charges.

The court by its order ratified and confirmed this ¹⁷ report and provided that the surplus principal in the trustee’s hands should be invested in United States Liberty Bonds. To tbis report all the beneficiaries, now the appellants, . filed written objections. They objected, all in good form, that the trustee in his report and account failed to charge himself with interest on certain items of the trust funds, that one item which was stated as an investment by him, a note, was also shown as a note held by the testatrix at the time of her death, and was shown paid, and that other investments shown were not well made. Then the trustee’s, declaration that he had administered the trust diligently and that he regretted the reduction of income which the demands of the beneficiaries would cause, is taken ivp by the exceptants and combatted in a somewhat argumentative manner, with allegations of necessity for the action of the beneficiaries by reason of bad financial, condition of the trustee personally, lack of information to the beneficiaries as to the investments made of the funds, and -a putting off by the trustee of a report and accounting.

Although the reply was, perhaps, invited by the trustee’s declaration, neither that declaration nor the reply to it were relevant to the rights of the case, and according to the strict rules of equity pleading were therefore impertinent and subject to be stricken out, either of them or both of them. Price v. Tyson, 3 Bland, 392 , 400 to 404. “The