Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Devilbiss

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On the 29th of September, 1914, a paper purporting to be the last will and testament of Henry F. Myers, deceased, and dated the 23rd day of March, 1912, was admitted to probate in the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore County, and letters testamentary were granted to the Safe Deposit and Trust Company of Baltimore, the executor named therein. On the same day Charles E. Ecker, on his own behalf “and on behalf of other parties in interest,” filed in said Court a notice that he would file a caveat to said will, and on the following day another paper purporting to be the last will and testament of Henry F. Myers, bearing date the 16th of December, 1910, was filed in said Court. By the will of 1910, the testator gave a legacy of two thousand dollars: to Charles E. Ecker, Esq., a legacy of five hundred dollars to Daisy Devilbiss-, and, after certain other bequests-, devised and bequeathed Hie rest and residue of his estate to the said Charles E. Ecker, who was made executor.

By the will dated the 23rd day of March, 1212, the entire estate ol the testator is given to the Safe Deposit and Trust Company of Baltimore, in trust to pay tho net income therefrom to his nephew, Philip S. Myers, during his natural life, and after his death to pay the principal to the children of the said Philip S. Myers, &c. On the llth of August, 1915, Charles E. Ecker and Daisy Devilbiss filed a petition and caveat to the will of 1912, alleging that the said Henry F. Myers left a last will and testament dated the 16th of December, 1910, in which they were mentioned as legatees; that the said paper dated the 23rd day of March, 1912, and alleged to be the last will and ¹⁸⁴ testament of the said Henry F. Myers, was not in fact his last will and testament; that “it was not executed in accordance with the laws of the State of Maryland”; that at the time of its execution the said Henry F. Myers was not of sound and disposing mind, &c.; that the same was procured by undue influence, and that the contents thereof were not known to or understood by the said Henry F. Myers at or before the time of the alleged execution thereof. The petition asked for issues to be framed and sent to the Circuit Court for trial, and for process against the Safe Deposit and Ti-ust Company, executor, &c. The Safe Deposit and Trust Company, executor, answered the petition and caveat, denying that said Henry F. Myers left a duly executed last will and testament dated December 16th, 1910, in which the petitioners were named as legatees, and alleging that if any such will ever existed it was revoked by the testator, Henry F. Myers, prior to his death; that the said Charles E. Eeker and Daisy Devilbiss were not the next of kin or heirs at law of the deceased, and that the said paper writing, dated the 23rd of March, 1912, which was duly admitted to probate by the Orphans' Court, was in fact the last will and testament of the said Henry F. Myers, &c.

Thereafter, on the 5th of October, 1915, the Safe Deposit and Trust Company of Baltimore, executor, filed a petition praying the Court to dismiss the caveat and petition of Charles E. Eeker and Daisy Devilbiss, and the Court passed an order requiring the caveators to show cause why the prayer of the petition should not be granted. On the 17th of November, 1915, the caveators answered the petition of the executor, and also filed a petition asking for certain issues relating to the validity of the will of 1912, and on the same day the Orphans’ Court passed an order directing the following issues to be sent to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County for trial: “First: Did the said Henry F. Myers execute the paper writing dated the 23rd day of March, 1912, and alleged to be his last will and testament, in accord ¹⁸⁵ anee with the provisions of the laws of the State of Maryland relating to the execution of wills? “Second: Was the said Henry F. Myers at the time of the execution of the paper writing dated the 23rd day of March, 1912, and alleged to he his last will and testament, of sound mind and memory and capable of executing a valid deed or contract ? “Third: Was the said Henry F. Myers induced to execute the paper writing dated the 23rd day of March, 1912, and alleged to be his last will and testament, by undue influence? “Fourth: Were the contents of the paper writing ■dated the 23rd day of March, 1912, and alleged to be the last will and testament of the said Henry F. Myers, known to the said Henry F. Myers at or before the time of the alleged execution thereof ?” From the order sending those issues to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County the Safe Deposit and Trust Company of Baltimore, executor, has brought this appeal. Independent of any adjudication of the questions, it would seem clear upon principle that only those who have an interest in the property of the testator in the event the will is annulled are entitled to caveat his will, or to issues relating to itsi validity, and that the right of caveators to maintain their suit should be established before such issues are transmitted to a Court of law for trial. Both of these propositions have, however, been distinctly settled in this State.

In the case of Tyler v. Murray, 57 Md. 418 , the Court adopts the statement of the Supreme Court in Sheppard v. Graves, 14 How. 509 , that, “it has ever been received as a canon of pleading, that matters which appertain solely to the jurisdiction of a Court, or the disabilities of the suitor, should never be blended with questions which enter essentially into the subject matter of the