Rieman v. Peters

Mason, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The appellees, Peters and wife, filed their petition in the orphans court of Baltimore county, alleging that letters testamentary had’ been granted to the appellants, as executors of George Peters, deceased, on the 28th day of March 1850, that the debts of the deceased had been paid, and that the time prescribed by law for the final settlement of the estate of the deceased, had passed, and concluded by praying “that said executors plight be required to make such final settlement accordingly.” This petition was filed on the 15th of ■October 1851. In reply to said petition, the executors filed their answer, in which they admit, that all the debts had been paid, except .current expenses, incident upon the management of the estate; that they had already rendered their first account, and that according to the plain directions and provisions of the will, no final settlement could be lawfully made by the executors, until after the death of Mrs. Peters, the widow of the deceased. The executors also set out at length, the- will of George Peters, out of which, grows the present controversy.

The orphans court of Baltimore, granted the prayer of the petitioners. There appears to be no difficulty in arriving at the intention of the testator, as indicated by the language of his will, and that intention must be effectuated, unless it should be in contravention of some established law. Under this extraordinary, and somewhat anomalous testamentary instrument, three distinct classes of representatives are appointed by the testator. In the first place, Henry Rieman and Launcelot Warfield, are named as trustees, for the purpose of accomplishing certain trusts, imposed upon them.

Secondly, George and James Peters are appointed agents, and as such, have distinct and independent duties assigned them; and in the third place, the appellants, Henry Reiman and Jesse T. Peters, are appointed executors. Whether the functions of these last named, in the capacity of executors, are to continue after the time shall have expired, within which they would be required by ¹⁰⁹ law, in ordinary cases, to render their final account, and surrender their office, is the question to which the attention of this court is especially invited. The parts of the will particularly relating to the subject matter of the present controversy, are in these words, viz: “In consideration of the regard and affection I have for my said wife, Sally Peters, and in lieu of any right of dower, or .thirds, or any other interest she may have as my widow, in any other estate, I do hereby give and bequeath to her, .during the term of her natural life, if she so long remains my •widow, but not otherwise, in addition to the property so conveyed in trust, the sum of five hundred dollars per annum, to be paid .out of my estate, in equal monthly payments, from the time of my decease.” And in another clause it is provided, that “if, from any unforeseen circumstance orcasuality, it becomes necessary, the whole residue of my estate, or the income thereof, or so much, or such part as may be requisite, shall be bound for and held answerable to make good that provision, during the lifetime of my said wife.” And the better to accomplish his last mentioned purpose, it is expressly directed by the testator, “that during the natural life of my said wife, my estate and property of every kind, subject to the said preceding devises, shall be preserved and kept together by rmj executors, hereinafter appointed;” and again, the will proceeds, “my sons, George Peters and James Peters, shall, under the direction and supervision of my executors, have the charge of, and attend to the renting, repairing and collecting the rents of my houses, See. And for the rents so collected, and paid over by them to my executors, they shall be entitled to, and receive