Rabinowitz v. Wollman

Sloan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Dora Wollman, of Baltimore City, died February 1st, 1936, leaving a will, whereby, after numerous bequests and legacies, all to charities, except two, by Item 17, she directed that: “All the rest and residue of my estate, whether real, personal or mixed, of which I may die seized or possessed, and wherever situate, I hereby give, devise and bequeath unto such religious, charitable, scientific, literary or educational Hebrew Corporations or associations organized and operated exclusively for such purposes as may be selected by my Executors in such proportions as they may designate, to be paid by my Executors out of the residue of my estate unto such corporations or associations so selected and in such proportions as my Executors shall designate, it being my request, however, that they shall select such institutions which are located in Palestine.” She appointed her brother, Aaron Wollman, and his son, Joseph I. Wollman, executors. The executors, appellees, filed a bill of complaint, wherein they said they were ready to make distribution of the estate of Dora Wollman, the residue of which amounted to about $3,500, and asked a construction of the seventeenth item of the will, some of the defendants ⁸ contending that its provisions were “too vague, indefinite and uncertain in (its) terms to constitute under the laws of Maryland,' a good and sufficient disposition of the residue of the estate of the said Dora Wollman,” ' and contended that, as to the residuum of her estate, she had died intestate. There is no allegation as to whether the executors had designated the beneficiaries of the residue, though the statement was made at the argument that they had.

The chancellor who heard the case held the seventeenth item of the will to be valid, and that it “sets up a sound, valid and enforceable use or trust,” and retained the bill for the purpose of determining any other questions which may arise in the course of administration of the estate. A half-sister, Anna L. Rabinowitz, one of the two next of kin, appealed. The contentions of the appellant are: (1) That the bequest of the residue under Item 17 of the will does not create a trust, and if a trust is created, the bequest is void because the legatees are indefinite; (2) the beneficiaries and objects are indefinite; (3) the Act of 1931, ch. 453, does not apply, as the bequest is not confined to charitable objects and purposes. Whether a- bequest to or for the use of a charity is a trust, as said by Mr. Charles McHenry Howard, 1 Md. Law Rev. 121, “is perhaps a mere matter of nomenclature.” It makes no difference whether the bequest is to be held in trust or is a direct gift to the charity (Brandt, Inc. v. Y. W. C. A., 169 Md. 607 , 182 A. 452 , and cases there cited), and this is not only implied but is expressed by the Act of 1931, ch. 453 (Code [Supp. 1935] art. 16, sec. 268A), wherein it says: “It shall be no objection to the validity or enforceability of such trusts or of such gift, deed, bequest, devise, etc., that the beneficiaries of such trust, constitute an indefinite class,” etc. The question in this court has always been, as to charities, whether the identification of the donee and the objects to be served were sufficiently definite, whether it was legally capable of taking the gift, and, if not, was provision made for the formation of a corporation to accept it ⁹ under the provisions of the Act of 1924, ch. 335?

Second National Bank v. Second National Bank, 171 Md. 547 , 190 A. 215 . It has been decided in this court, however, that those holding the legal title, as the executors do in this case, hold the same as trustees for the beneficiaries; but, if failing in that, then for the heirs or next of kin of the testator. In the case of Maught v. Getzendanner, 65 Md. 527 , 5 A. 471, 472 , heard in 1886, forty-five years before the passage of the Act of 1931, ch. 453, the testator left to the Reverend H. G. Bowers of Jefferson, Maryland, all the rest and residue of his estate, “and desire him to use and appropriate the same for such religious and charitable purposes and objects, and in such sums and in such manner, as will, in his judgment, best promote the cause of Christ.” This court held the provision too general. Another question, and the one receiving most consideration, was whether, the object failing for uncertainty, the minister became the legatee, or the testator’s next of kin.

It was held that, if the beneficiaries could have taken, then he held as trustee for them, and failing in that he held as trustee for the next of kin, even though the words “in trust”