Worthington v. Rich

Fowler, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant conveyed to his mother certain real and personal property, to hold the same in trust, first, to apply certain bonds, or the proceeds thereof, to the payment of his debts, and the balance of such proceeds to pay over to him for his own use. Second, during the natural life of the grantor, the trustee was authorized to collect the rents and income from the trust estate, and, after the payment by her of all necessary charges, the net income was to be paid to said grantor for his own use and benefit, not subject or liable, however, to his debts. The trustee was authorized to sell the trust property in whole or in part, and invest the proceeds for the use and benefit of the grantor, subject to the trusts declared in said deed.

The grantor reserves to himself the power to dispose of the trust property' by will; and the deed declares that the trusts thereby created shall cease from and after the death of the grantor. The trustee named in the deed, who was the mother of the grantor, died, and by proper proceedings in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County the appellee, Mr. Edward N. Rich, was substituted as trustee in her place, and the Court assumed jurisdiction of the trust. Subsequently the grantor, who as we have seen, is the only beneficiary named in said deed, applied to the trustee, Mr. Rich, to have $8,000 of bonds, which constituted part of the trust estate, delivered to said grantor, to be applied by him to the payment of his debts. ²⁶⁸ The trustee not being willing to assume the responsibility of acting without the sanction of the Court, a petition was filed by the grantor, asking for an order authorizing the transfer of the bonds as requested by him. In this petition the provisions of the deed of trust already mentioned are set out, and it is alleged that, in case of the death of the grantor intestate, the trust estate, including the bonds, would go to his heirs-at-law and next-of-kin — a sister and a son of a deceased sister,— and that they had assented to the proposed transfer of the bonds to the grantor.

The grantor also, in his petition tenders himself ready to stipulate by contract irrevocable with the trustee against any disposition by will of the bonds referred to, and his next-of-kin, the two persons above mentioned, filed with the petition an agreement under their hands and seals, agreeing that said bonds may be delivered to the grantor as requested by him, and that the said trustee shall in no manner be liable for the said bonds or the proceeds thereof; it having been agreed by the grantor, and as a condition precedent to the signing of the foregoing agreement, that all the other trust property shall remain in irust, subject to all the trusts in said deed declared. The trustee, Mr. Rich, answered this petition, admitting all the facts set forth therein, and especially that the said sister and son of a deceased sister are the only heirs-at-law and next-of-kin of the grantor, and declares himself ready to deliver said bonds to the grantor on the condition mentioned in the petition; if the Court should determine that he will, in so doing, be fully protected thereby. The Court below, however, by a pro forma order dismissed the petition, and the grantor has appealed. Inasmuch as the appellant has disclaimed any intention to impeach the deed of trust by these proceedings, we do not think it proper to do more than determine whether, under the circumstances above set forth, the ²⁶⁹ trustee may, with safety to himself and his sureties, transfer the bonds in question to the appellant — the deed of