Ortman v. Dugan

Constable, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This, appeal involves the construction of the will of Thomason Bussell, deceased, who died in the year 1871, by which Janet Levy, her daughter, was devised certain real property in remainder. Hammond J. Dugan, trustee of the estate of Janet Levy, deceased, reported the sale of fee simple property, No. 904 West Franklin street, Baltimore City, to the appellant F. William Ortman, upon the theory that the title thereto' became vested in the said Janet Levy under the fifth paragraph of the will of Thomason Bussell, and by virtue of a deed from Louis Levy and others, the only children of the said Janet Levy to Janet Levy. The fifth clause of the said will reads as follows; “Fifth: I do devise to said William W. McClellan and his executors and administrators and heirs in trust and special confidence nevertheless for the sole and separate use for and during his life, of my son, William Bussell, the house on the south side of Madison street, with its lot, now numbered 149, being the third house, west of Garden street, on said Madison street, and also the middle house with its lot of my ¹²³ three houses on Franklin street west of Fremont street and now numbered 375, in said city, and from and immediately after the death of said .William Russell then to his issue per stirpes and their heirs, and it is my will that on the said child or children of William attaining the age of twenty-one years severally, he or she shall then have the power of disposing of said child’s interest in said property by will or otherwise, but if he, she or they should die without making such disposition and without leaving issue, then it is my will that the same shall go to my daughter Jennette Levy, under and for the trusts as set forth in article second hereof, for and during her life, and from and immediately after her death, then to her issue per stirpes and their heirs The said will contained a residuary clause devising all the rest and residue of her property to all her children per stirpes living at her death and their heirs.

The appellant filed exceptions to the ratification of the sale on the ground that the trustee could not convey to him a good and marketable title for the reason that the remainders to Janet Levy and her issue and their heirs were invalid in that they contravened the rule against perpetuities. The admitted and conceded facts, in the record show that the will in question was executed in 1867. That the son, William IT. Riissell died in 1911 and that he had had only two children, both of whom had died before the said will was-executed.

That all of the children of Thomason Russell were now deceased, with the possible exception of one son, but that there were descendants living of three of her children: Jennette Levy is the same person as Janet Levy. The lower Court overruled the exceptions and ratified and confirmed the sale and it is from that decree that this appeal is taken. The question to he determined is whether the executory devise in favor of Janet Levy for life and to her issue