Mudge v. Mudge
Decision Date | 09 June 1927 |
Docket Number | 22. |
Citation | 138 A. 20,153 Md. 291 |
Parties | MUDGE v. MUDGE. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Baltimore County; C. Gus Grason, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Bill by Margaret H. Mudge against Arthur P. Mudge, individually and as executor of the last will and testament of Edward Tileston Mudge, deceased. Decree for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for decree in conformity with opinion.
Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.
Philander B. Briscoe, of Baltimore, for appellant.
Wm. H Lawrence and Leigh Bonsal, both of Baltimore, for appellee.
Edmund Tileston Mudge, late of Baltimore county, departed this life on or about the 7th day of January, 1926, after having, on the 30th day of September, 1925, executed his last will and testament in these words:
The will was on the 12th day of January, 1926, admitted to probate and thereafter letters testamentary were issued to testator's son Arthur P. Mudge, who qualified and entered upon his duties as such executor.
Margaret H. Mudge, the granddaughter of the testator, filed in the circuit court for Baltimore county, sitting as a court of equity, a bill against Arthur P. Mudge, individually and as executor of Edmund Tileston Mudge, deceased, asking for a construction of the will.
In her bill she alleges that:
By the "true construction of said last will and testament, and particularly of the second paragraph thereof, * * * the complainant is given and bequeathed the sum of $5,000, in addition to and in excess of the sum of $50 each month to be paid until an additional amount of $5,000 is received," though the "defendant denies that such is the proper construction of said last will and testament and claims that the testator intended only to give the sum of $5,000, to be paid in monthly installments."
The bill then alleges that:
"She has demanded, in writing, the payment of said $5,000, in addition to said monthly payments, but the defendant has refused to pay the same."
The defendant answered the bill, admitting all its allegations except the one alleging that, by a true construction of the will, the plaintiff was entitled to receive thereunder the amount claimed therein by her.
After a hearing upon bill, answer, and testimony taken in open court, the learned chancellor adopted the contention of the defendant and decreed:
At the time of the death of the testator, he was the owner of a tract of land in Baltimore county, containing...
To continue reading
Request your trial