Scott v. Shuffler

Smith, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. We shall here affirm the construction placed upon a will by a circuit judge (Mace, J.). Appellant, Rachel Moore Scott, is a daughter of Sarah F. Bell, the testatrix. Helen M. Shuffler, the appellee, is a granddaughter, the only child of a deceased daughter of Mrs. Bell.

John Randolph Moore acquired 68.265 acres of land in the Castle Haven area of the Eighth or Neck Election District of Dorchester County in 1902. He died testate in 1909 leaving his entire estate to his wife, Sarah F. Moore (who later married Bell), for life and upon her death to his children living at the time of his death. There were four children, the appellant, the mother of the appellee, a son, and a daughter, Virginia, who died intestate, unmarried, and without issue in 1932. Accordingly, her undivided one-fourth interest in the remainder passed to her mother.

The son died subsequent to his mother and his interest is now vested in appellant. Appellee owns the interest of her mother. The will of Mr. Moore requires no construction, but it is noted that it was prepared by an experienced Dorchester County attorney. The home on the Moore farm was destroyed by fire several years prior to the death of Mrs. Bell and replaced with a trailer or mobile home.

The will of Mrs. Bell appears on the stationery of an experienced member of the Dorchester County bar, now deceased. It is witnessed by that attorney and his secretary, from which the conclusion is drawn that it was prepared by him. Using the words “give and bequeath,” the first and second items of the will disposed of personal ⁴³⁴ property. Under item first the son received a “Pearl Handle Writing Pen,” said to have been given his mother by his father.

In item second Mrs. Bell bequeathed to her daughter all of the mother’s “personal belongings, table linens, bed linens, clothes and jewelry.” Mrs. Scott is the beneficiary under item fourth, a residuary clause. The matter in controversy is item third which reads as follows: “THIRD: I give, devise and bequeath my Trailer Home, together with the furniture, fixtures and furnishings therein, which came with and are used as a part of the trailer, all of which I consider to be a part of the real estate where the same is located, unto the said Rachel Moore Scott, Arthur R. Moore, and my granddaughter, Helen Margaret Shuffler, of Dorchester County, State of Maryland, as tenants in common, equally, share and share alike, their heirs and assigns, in fee simple.” Appellant contends the interest of her mother in the farm passed under the residuary clause, while appellee says it passed under item third. The trailer together with the furniture, fixtures, and furnishings referred to in item third have been sold and the proceeds divided equally among the three heirs. The farm was sold by agreement and the proceeds are being held in escrow pending the outcome of this litigation.

The chancellor in his opinion said: “Concededly, there is an ambiguity in the Will of Mrs. Bell, but there is nothing in the record before this Court that would provide a reason why Mrs. Bell would intend to disinherit any of her three heirs or to favor one above another. The wording of Item Third would certainly indicate a desire that her three heirs share equally. Item Fourth would appear to be merely a catchall clause. Certainly, the just, natural and reasonable manner of disposing of her property would be such as her heirs would share equally, and there is nothing before this Court to indicate a contrary intention. ⁴³⁵ “The Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the twenty-five percent fee simple absolute interest acquired by Mrs. Bell from Virginia Moore should be distributed equally, one-third to Rachel Scott, one-third to Arthur Moore and one-third to Helen Margaret Shuffler.” The guidelines for construing a will were succinctly expressed for the Court by Judge Hammond in Marty v. First Nat’l Bk. of Balto., 209 Md. 210 , 120 A. 2d 841 (1956): “In seeking to find what the testator meant, we adhere to the rules and guides which the cases have established.

Intention is primary and paramount. This is not the presumed but the expressed intention of the testator. What must be sought is not what the testator meant as distinguished from what his words express, but ‘* * * simply what is the true meaning of his words; not merely what he meant, but what his words mean.’ Miller, Construction of Wills, Sec. 10. Schapiro v. Howard, 113 Md. 360 .

What the words express is to be interpreted according to their plain meaning and import. Stein v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 127 Md. 206 . This expressed intention of a testator must be gathered from the language of the entire will, particularly from the clause in dispute, read in the light of the surrounding circumstances at the time the will was made. Chism v. Reese, 190 Md. 311 ; West v. Sellmayer, 150 Md. 478 ; Jones v. Holloway, 183 Md. 40 ; Robinson v. Mercantile