Monmonier v. Monmonier
Hammond, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The contest before us is between two members of the Monmonier family, each known as J. Carroll Monmonier and each claiming to be the “John Carroll Monmonier” intended to take under paragraph 2 (a) of the will of their aged spinster cousin, Emma Lou Monmonier. Judge Haile, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, found that Joseph Carroll Monmonier (Jay) was the intended beneficiary, and his cousin, John Carroll Monmonier (John), has appealed. Testimony that put the Court in the armchair of the testatrix came in by stipulation or without objection and showed the following: a Francis Monmonier is the common ancestor of the testatrix, Jay, and John.
By his first wife he had a son, John Francis who had a son Louis who had another John Francis, who in turn had John, the appellant. John is thus a great, great grandson of the common ancestor and, as the testatrix puts it in her will, her “distant cousin.” By his second wife the common ancestor, Francis, had two sons, Louis and Joseph Carroll. Emma Lou, the testatrix, is the daughter of Louis. Louis’ brother Joseph Carroll had a son also named Joseph Carroll, who is the father of Joseph, the appellee.
Thus Jay is the great grandson of the common ancestor Francis and, as the testatrix puts it in her will, her “second cousin” (perhaps more technically, or as in some places below Mason and Dixon’s Line, her first cousin once removed) . Emma Lou, the testatrix, made her will in 1960 when she was eighty-five and died nine years later without immediate family. When she was thirty-three (1908) Jay, her cousin of the whole blood once removed, was born in Catonsville. He resided there much of his life and lived at 200 Beechwood Avenue when the will was made, as he now does.
He has always used the name J. Carroll Mon 389 monier, as did his father and his grandfather before him, and is known as Carroll to his family and friends. Neither he nor his father or grandfather used the name Joseph. His father and grandfather lived side by side in Catonsville and Emma Lou often visited his father there. After he became an adult, Jay did not see Emma Lou for many years.
Several months before the will was made, he visited her with another cousin, a visit occasioned by the death of a Monmonier relative. After that she sent him her father’s watch, saying she wanted him to have it (he is a jeweler and watchmaker). Several months after the execution of the will — of which he then knew nothing — he had another pleasant visit with Emma Lou. The appellant John and his wife and son visited Emma Lou more often during the years and they had some correspondence, including the exchange of Christmas cards.
John worked for the B. & O. Railroad and resided on Birch Drive in Woodlawn when the will was made. In her will Emma Lou Monmonier mentioned the name “John Carroll Monmonier” in three separate paragraphs. In paragraph 2 (a) after giving conditional life estates in her home property at Hydes, Maryland which failed, she gave and devised “said premises and the furniture contained therein to my second cousin, John Carroll Monmonier, presently residing on Beech Avenue, Catonsville, Maryland, to have and to hold as his property absolutely” (italics supplied). In paragraph 3 the testatrix said “I give, devise and bequeath unto my distant cousin, John Carroll Monmonier (who is presently working for the Baltimore and Ohio Raih-oad) my 'School-house’ property located
This is a preview of Monmonier v. Monmonier. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.