Ripple v. Kuehne

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The object of this proceeding is to declare illegal, null and void the following assignment of Baltimore City water stock, No. 5593, valued at $5,000, andstanding in the name ofMary Elizabeth Hax, for life. The assignment is in the following language: “Baltimore, March 31, 1894. “For value received, we, the undersigned do hereby assign, transfer and set over unto Mary E. Hax all our right, title and interest in and to $5,ooo worth of Baltimore City water stock No. 5593, standing in the name of Mary Elizabeth Hax for life.” This assignment was duly signed by the plaintiffs below, the appellees here, and their signatures were tested by the defendant below, the appellant here, and on the 9th of April, 1.895, upon application, the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City ordered the stock to be transferred to the assignee. In this case it will be necessary for us to state and set out the material facts as disclosed by the record, as upon these will rest the decision of the case.

The bill charges that Christian Hax, of Baltimore City, departed this life in the year 1885, leaving a large and valuable-estate which he disposed of by last will and testament. By the will he devised all his property and estate, except a. small portion thereof, to his wife, Mary C. Hax, for life, with certain powers, and after the death of his wife he directed that the undisposed of portion thereof should be divided into three ⁶⁷⁴ equal parts. One of these parts (the one here in controversy) be devised to Mary Elizabeth Hax, the widow of a deceased son, to be held and enjoyed by .her during her widowhood, and upon her second marriage or death, whichever event should first happen, then it should go to his grandchildren, viz: Mary H., Mary Christina, Louis and Christian V. Hax. It is further alleged that Mary C. Hax, the widow, died in the year 1889, and that the water stock together with other property, was transferred to the devisee for life, to be held under the testator’s will, and that subsequently on the 3rd day of April, 1894,'she intermarried with the defendant, Frank J. Ripple, whereupon her interest in the estate ceased and became the property of her children, the appellees in this case.

It is also alleged that Christian V. Hax, one of the brothers, departed this life in November, 1891, prior to the marriage of his mother, intestate and unmarried, leaving two sisters, a brother (the appellees), and his mother as sole distribtees and his only heirs at law. The bill further avers that prior to and upon the contemplated marriage, the mother claimed and represented to be the sole heir distributee of her deceased son, and claimed she was entitled to all of his estate, and then proposed to take in her right as sole heir and distributee the $5,000 of Baltimore City stock mentioned in the assignment and to convey the residue of the estate devised to her for life, and to the appellees, under Christian Hax will. The bill then charges that they were induced by these false and fraudulent statements and representations as contained in the bill to execute and deliver to their mother the assignment of the 31st of March, 1894, and by reason of the fraud and misrepresentation by which the assignment was acquired, it is illegal and void. The prayer of the bill is, first, that the assignment of the water stock may be declared null and void; second, that the property in which the proceeds of the stock was invested may be held and declared liable for the value of their interest in the stock, third, that the property may be decreed to be sold and ⁶⁷⁵ they be reimbursed out of the proceeds of the sale for their interest in the stock, and fourth, a prayer for general relief.

The defendant, Ripple, answered the bill both as executor and in his individual right. He admits the assignment of the water stock prior to the marriage and that it was transferred to his wife, and subsequently sold; and that he and his wife now deceased, purchased and took title to the Augusta avenue property, as tenants by the entireties. He avers and charges that the claim that the appellees were induced by the fraud and misrepresentation of their mother to execute and deliver the assignment of March 31st, 1894, is false and scandalous, and a willful and deliberate falsehood. On the 9th of March, 1904, the testimony was closed by the examiner, and on the following day, the 10th of March, the bill of complaint was dismissed by order of the attorney for the plaintiffs as to Frank J. Ripple, executor of Mary E. Ripple.

There was a large amount of testimony taken in the case, and after a careful consideration of all of it,