Michael v. Morfy

Bowie, C. J., delivered the ©pinion of this Court. The contract, the true construction and legal effect of which is the subject of the present appeal, was before this 'Court in the ease of Morey, Ex’tx of Michael, vs. Michael, 18 Md. Rep., 228 , brought up by appeal of the appellee, ‘Caroline, as executrix of Catharine Michael, from a decree •dismissing the hill on demurrer. That suit was presented by her as executrix, and the demurrer overruled by this Court, upon the ground that •although the will executed by Mrs. Michael, was not a good execution of the power, as to the principal sum covenanted to he paid by Isaac Michael, yet the interest accruing during the coverture, was the sole and separate estate of •the wife, which she might bequeath independently, of the power. In the argument of that case, a prominent point on the part of the appellee was, as in this, that the appellant’s remedy, if any, was in a Court of Law, and not in equity ; ■that the only object of tbe hill was to recover a specific sum •of money, and interest upon a covenant to pay.

In other words, it was a contract for the payment of money to be •enforced at law, not a trust resting in confidence, of which equity had cognizance. It became necessary, therefore, in deciding that point, •which went to the .jurisdiction of the Court, and which,<5f ²⁶⁰ tenable, would have compelled this Court to sustain tbe demurrer, to examine the character of the instrument exhibited with the bill, (which is the same now exhibited by the appellees with their bill,) and determine ,the rights of those claiming under it, particularly the relation of the appellee in that case (now the appellant) to the principal fund. The views of the Court on this point are thus expressed, “The appellee took the legal title to the property under the contract, with limitations against any beneficial use or interest in himself, and a determination of the character of his relation to it will decide the question of jurisdiction presented by the demurrer.” “Although the contract in some respects is inartificially drawn, it is clear that the intent of the parties to it was, to fix upon the appellee a fiduciary possession of the fund assigned, and create a trust by which the purpose of the testatrix as to its beneficial use and ultimate destination would be accomplished.” The creation of a trust depends upon intention, and when expressions used manifest an intention that the grantee or donee of property is not to have the beneficial use, but is to hold it for the benefit of another, he will be considered as a trustee holding the legal title for the beneficial owner. “A gift or grant of property to a grantee or donee, to be applied to a certain use or purpose, fastens a trust on the holding of the legal estate.” Hill on Trustees, 65. 2 Ves., Jr., 335. 7 Eng. L. & E. Rep., 134. 3 Md. Rep., 505 .

In this case, we think the appellee took the property assigned by the contract as a fund, with the interest as it might or should accrue- in the lifetime of the testatrix, encumbered with a trust, and notwithstanding the form of his obligation in reference to it, relief in equity may be had for any failure or default on his part in its execution.” 18 Md. Rep., 240, 241 . ²⁶¹ Although this point may not have been as fully argued m the former case as in the present, yet it cannot he said that the decision just cited was “obiter dictum,” as the question was directly involved in the issues of law raised by the demurrer to tho bill, and the mind of the Court was directly drawn to and distinctly expressed upon the subject. We consider this construction of the instrument in question conclusive on this point, not because it was made in a suit between the same persons hut different parties, but because the point was “investigated with care and considered in its fullest extent,” which is all that is necessary in this State to render a decision binding as a precedent. Alexander vs. Worthington, 5 Md. Rep., 488, 489 . The jurisdiction of this Court being established, the second point raised by the appellants is, that the appellee, Caroline, is not a cestui que trust under the ante-nuptial contract, which should be construed to embrace only a child or children of the marriage which the said Catharine might leave at the time of her death.

This construction is based upon the assumption, that there is no allegation in the hill, or evidence in the cause, that Isaac Michael knew his intended wife had any child living at the time of their entering into the^contract, and the fact that the ante-nuptial contract does not refer to any such person specifically. It must he conceded, there is no reference to the fact of a prior marriage on the part of Mrs. Catharine Michael, or of her being a mother, in the agreement referred to, hut the hill expressly charges, she was a widow and had an only child of tender years dependent on her, and the answer of the appellant admits the complainant, Caroline, is the child of Catharine by a former marriage, and there was no issue by her second husband. With these facts, it would be a most unnatural as well as forced construction, which ²⁶² would confine the general terms of an ante-nuptial contract, which are broad enough to include all the children of the covenantee or cestui que trust, to those only she might thereafter have, and thus exclude the issue of the first marriage from all benefit of the estate of her mother, previously acquired. The complainant is clearly within the letter as well as the spirit of the contract, as indicated by the circumstances ■of the contracting parties.

The appellant’s answer insists, that Catharine Michael violated all the stipulations of the marriage contract without any cause whatever, which he is •advised renders all the covenants and stipulations, to be performed after the death of the said Catharine, utterly null and void, and that he is not, in equity, bound to comply with or perform any of the covenants in said contract not to be performed in the .lifetime of the said Catharine. This position