Rogers v. Cobb

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The bill in this case was filed on the 9th of May, 1898, in the Circuit Court No. 2, of Baltimore City, for the construction of a deed dated the 9th of May, 1873, executed by the appellee, Adam R. Shipley, to the appellant’s testator, Thomas W. ■ Ball. By this deed the grantor, Shipley, in consideration of the sum of two thousand dollars, conveyed certain leasehold property, situate on Carrollton avenue, in Baltimore City, to T. Walker Ball, his personal representatives and assigns: “in trust, however, for the use and benefit of Helen F. Hall, wife of T. Walker Ball, with full power and authority to Helen F. Ball, during her natural life, .to use and occupy said described ground and premises, or the same to sell and dispose of either by deed, mortgage, lease or contract, with or without the consent or approbation of her husband, in the same manner as if she were single and unmarried, and the proceeds of the same to dispose of in any manner and for any purpose she may think proper, without being in anywise liable or bound for the debts, contracts or engagements of her present or any future husband. But if Helen F. Ball shall die before her husband, without having disposed of said ground and premises in manner aforesaid, then the same shall be ¹⁶⁷ come the estate and property of T. Walker Ball, his personal representatives and assigns.” The facts of the case, as disclosed by the record, 'appear to be these.

Helen F. Ball survived her husband, and both of them are now dead. They each left a last will and testament, by which they severally undertook to bequeath the property described in this deed. By the will of Helen F. Ball, she bequeathed the property to Mary Ann Cobb, one of the appellees. By the will of T. Walker Ball, he gave one-half of “the rest of his property and estate ” to his wife, Helen F. Ball, and the residue to his sisters, Sarah A. Blakey and Harriet McN.

Ball. All the persons in interest were made parties to the bill, and having appeared and answered, submitted the determination of a construction of the deed to the Court below. The question then, is, what estate did Helen F. Ball take under the terms of this deed ? Did she take a life-estate with a power of disposition, or did she take an equitable estate for the remainder of the term of years ?

The solution of this question can be found, we think, in an examination of the words of the deed itself. The grantor in the deed conveys the property, “ in trust for the use and benefit of Helen F. Ball, wife of T. Walker Ball, with full power and authority to Helen F. Ball,” &c. Nowit is well settled,that the language here used would transfer the whole estate of the grantor to the grantee in the property therein mentioned, unless there be words of limitation or reservation showing by implication or otherwise a different intent. Code, Art. 21, sec. 11 and 12; Hawkins v. Chapman, 36 Md. 83 ; Foos v. Scarf, 55 Md. 301 ; Worthington v. Lee, 61 Md. 530 .

In the case of Benesch v. Clark, 49 Md. 497 , this Court said, “ that where an estate is given to a person generally or indefinitely with power of disposition, such gift carries the entire estate and the devisee or legatee takes not a simple power, but the property