Mitchell v. Mitchell

•Stewart, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The will of Francis J. Mitchell creates a conditional limitation of the estate involved in this litigation, depending upon the occurrence of the event provided for in the will. It was urged by the counsel for the respondent, that a Court of Equity ought not to aid in enforcing a penalty or forfeiture, and that the demand of the complainant was of that description. We have said, this devise is a conditional limitation — as such, a Court of Equity is bound to regard it, as well as a court of law. ⁵⁹³ “ The general rule, that a Court of Equity never-enforces a forfeiture, has not been applied to cases of conditional limitation.

It applies to penalties and forfeitures absolute and certain.” Gough v. Manning, 26 Md. 361 . James D. Mitchell, the original trustee under the will, to whom the legal estate was devised in trust, having died in the year 1837, the estate, bound by the trust, created by the will, devolved upon Sarah E. Mitchell, his heir at law, who thus held the property until the determination of her legal estate, in the year 1847, when, by the limitation of the will, it vested in Henry S. Mitchell, the survivor of Francis — the contingency limited in the will having happened. At this period, Henry S. Mitchell was entitled to the legal estate — *Mitchell v. Mitchell, 18 Md. 405 — but did not recover from her the actual possession of the property until October, 1862, after the decision of this court in favor of his title in the action of ejectment instituted by him in May, 1857. He was also entitled to the income thereof, with any accumulated surplus that had accrued therefrom, subject to the trust in the will, to wit: the annual payment of two hundred dollars to his sister Sarah, during her life.

Her right to this annuity is not made, by the will, dependent upon the sufficiency of the rents and profits to pay it, year by year, but is absolute. The annuity is made a charge on the corpus, as well as on the accumulated fund provided for in the will. But as this bill was not filed until the year 1854, and for the surplus rents and profits which had accrued, not only up to' the year 1847, but to the filing of the bill, the respondent insists that the complainant has no good and valid claim, owing to the lapse of time, and that if he have any demand whatever, certainly not to the extent of the decree below ratifying the action of the special auditor. We do not think, under the peculiar circumstances attending her possession of the property, that either limitation or lapse of time is a bar to a recovery in this suit.

Sarah E. Mitchell having held the possession, as trustee, until the year 1847, when her legal estate, as such trustee, ceased,