Chase v. Winans

• Decision Date: 02 March 1883
• Citation: 59 Md. 475
• Parties: WILLIAM HALTON CHASE, SARAH CHASE, and others v. ROSS R WINANS, CELESTE WINANS, and others.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

59 Md. 475

WILLIAM HALTON CHASE, SARAH CHASE, and others v. ROSS R WINANS, CELESTE WINANS, and others.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 2, 1883

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City.

This appeal was taken from a pro forma decree, passed by agreement, dismissing the bill of the complainants.

The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

The cause was argued before MILLER, STONE, ALVEY, IRVING, and RITCHIE, J.

Charles J. Bonaparte, for the appellants.

Arthur Geo. Brown, and John H. B. Latrobe for the appellees.

ALVEY J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

The late Judge Jeremiah Townley Chase died in 1828. He made his last will and testament in 1823. Between the date of his will and the time of his death he made six different codicils to his will; the will and codicils were made and executed in due form to pass real estate, and were, soon after the death of the testator, duly admitted to probate.

The testator, at the time of his death, was seised of a parcel of ground, situate in Baltimore County, now in Baltimore City containing about twenty-one acres of land; and which had, prior to his death, been leased to a certain Vachel Dorsey. By his will, he gave and bequeathed to his daughter, Hester Ann Chase, during her life, all the rents then due, or which might thereafter become due, on the lot of ground which he had so leased to Vachel Dorsey; and the estate in such lot, after the death of his daughter, Hester Ann, he devised to his grandchildren in fee simple, to be equally divided among them. He also gave to his daughter, Hester Ann, sixty shares of the stock of the Farmers' Bank of Maryland.

By the second codicil, executed in May, 1824, he recited that because the sixty shares of Bank stock bequeathed to his daughter, Hester Ann, by his will, had been applied to the payment of a judgment recovered by the Bank against his son-in-law, he bequeathed to his said daughter the sum of $3000, in lieu and in the place of the shares of stock so bequeathed to her; and he thereby declared that he revoked and annulled "all devises and bequests of shares of stock in the said Bank to the persons therein mentioned." And by the sixth codicil, executed in 1826, he again revoked and declared void that clause in his will by which he bequeathed the sixty shares of stock in the Farmers' Bank of Maryland to his daughter Hester Ann, and in lieu thereof, he devised to her all his right, title and interest in the twenty-one acres of land which he had leased to Vachel Dorsey, then deceased.

This devise of the Vachel Dorsey lot to the daughter Hester Ann, was allowed to stand unimpeached until several years after the death of the devisee, which took place in 1875. In 1859 she executed a lease of the lot of ground for ninety-nine years, renewable forever, to Thomas Winans, in consideration of $10,000, subject to an annual ground rent of $2,400; and in pursuance of a covenant in the lease, the reversion in fee was conveyed by the lessor, on January 5th, 1869, to Thomas, William J., and Ross Winans, in consideration of $40,000, making the aggregate consideration for the property $50,000. The grantees, and those claiming under them, have been in possession of the property ever since the date of the conveyances by the devisee, holding and claiming the property as their own.

The bill in this case was filed on the 26th of March, 1880, by some of the grandchildren of the testator, and others, against other of the grandchildren of the testator, and others, including the parties claiming under the conveyances made by the devisee, Miss Hester Ann Chase. The object of the bill, professedly, is to obtain partition of the estate in question, and to procure an account from the possessors thereof; but the real object is to bring into question and contest the validity of the sixth codicil and the probate thereof, or, failing in that, to raise the question whether the devise therein of the Vachel Dorsey lot was good and effective to defeat the previous devise of the same property to the grandchildren of the testator. This would seem to be the real and substantial object in view, and the question of partition and account are only incidental and dependent.

Before proceeding to consider the main questions, there is a preliminary question presented for determination.

After the answers were filed, but before the testimony was in, or the Judge below could know or see by examination what would be the state of the proof, whether doubtful or conflicting, and proper to be referred to a jury, the plaintiffs made application for issues to be framed and sent to a Court of law to be tried by a jury. This application was refused, and we think properly so.

An issue of fact from a Court of equity to be tried by a jury is not a matter of right, at any stage of the proceeding; and in the exercise of a discretion it should only be allowed where the proof before the Judge creates doubt, by reason of conflict, doubtful credibility of witnesses, or where, from a mass of circumstances, it may be difficult to draw a proper conclusion; but it is never allowed as a substitute for the failure of proof, or for omitted evidence. Whitaker vs Newman, 2 Hare, 300. Indeed there is no doubt that a Court of equity has the power and full right to decide every question of law or fact which may arise out of the subject-matter before it, and over which it has jurisdiction, and the trial by issue forms no necessary incident to the proceedings of such Court. It is resorted to simply as a means of informing the conscience of the Court, and is not binding upon it; and it is said by high authority that the expense and delay attendant upon such mode of trial should only be incurred when the Court, in the exercise of a sound discretion, may deem it necessary. Short vs. Lee, 2 J. & Walk., 495. By the English practice there seems to be an exception to the general rule in favor of the heir at law; but it does not appear that any such exception has ever...