Crisp v. Crisp

Decision Date09 January 1884
Citation61 Md. 149
PartiesANNIE E. CRISP and F. Grafton Crisp, Trustees, Etc. v. ROBERT F. CRISP, William S. Crisp and Others.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, in Equity.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

The cause was submitted to Alvey, Stone, Robinson, Irving, and Bryan, JJ.

Luther M. Reynolds, for the appellants.

John F. Williams and Julian I. Alexander for the appellees.

Stone J., delivered the opinion of the court.

That part of the will of Richard O. Crisp, of Anne Arundel County that has given rise to the present controversy may be found in the following clauses:

"I give and bequeath my farm, situate on Curtis Creek, in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, unto my wife, Annie E. Crisp, and my brother, Frederick Grafton Crisp, and the survivor of them, and the heirs of such survivor, and their successors, in trust and special confidence, nevertheless, for the following uses and purposes: That my wife, Annie E. Crisp, shall be permitted to use and enjoy said farm and premises and receive therefrom the rents and profits until such time as they shall have an offer of $100,000, and shall invest $50,000 of the proceeds of such sale in good and safe securities under the direction of the court and pay the interest received from the said $50,000, so invested, unto my wife, Annie E. Crisp, during her natural life, and at her death said $50,000, or the securities in which the same may be invested, shall go to and become the property and estate of such person or persons as would, by the now existing laws of the State of Maryland, be entitled to take an estate in fee simple in lands by descent from me, and the heirs, executors and administrators, of such person or persons, per stirpes and not per capita."
"But if said farm cannot be sold for the sum of $100,000, within eighteen years from the date of my death, then, and in that event, this trust shall cease, and in that event it is my will that said farm shall go and become the property of such persons as would, by the now existing laws of the State of Maryland, be entitled to take an estate in fee simple in lands by descent from me, and the heirs, executors and administrators, of such person or persons, per stirpes and not per capita." "But if my wife should die before the sale of said farm for $100,000, and before the expiration of eighteen years from the date of my death, I desire that the rents and profits of said farm from the date of her death until the expiration of said eighteen years, shall go to my legal heirs.

All the rest and residue of my property, I desire to go and be divided among my legal heirs under the laws of the State of Maryland, in the same way as it would, without a will; subject, however, to the dower interest and distributive share of my wife, in all my property, real and personal, and in said residue."

The farm was sold for the $100,000, the sale duly ratified, and the widow and those who were the heirs-at-law of Richard O Crisp at the time of his death, wishing to divide the $50,000 allotted to the widow, between them in such manner as to suit themselves, this proceeding has been instituted. The only question for us to decide is to determine whether the remainder in this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Brickell v. Lightcap
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • July 9, 1917
    ...527; Minot v. Tappan, 122 Mass, 535; Whall v. Converse, 146 Mass. 345, 15 N.E. 660; Rotch v. Rotch, 173 Mass. 125, 53 N.E. 268; Crisp v. Crisp, 61 Md. 149; Boston, Co. v. Parker, 197 Mass. 70, 83 N.E. 307; Allison v. Allison, 101 Va. 573, 44 S.E. 904, 63 L. R. A. 920; Wadsworth v. Murray, 1......
  • Watson v. Wolff-Goldman Realty Co.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 2, 1910
    ...remainder, and they are entitled to an injunction to prevent further cutting, as well as an accounting for that already cut. 68 Ark. 376; 61 Md. 149; 2 Sandf. Chy. 533; 5 Wall. 268; 6 458; 19 Wall. 167; 4 Pet. 1; 6 Pet. 622; Id. 595; 74 Ark. 347; 44 Ark. 476; 63 Ark. 15; 15 Barb. 225; 70 N.......
  • Thom v. Thom
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • June 21, 1905
    ...time that the rule of law fixes)"; and, when this intention is manifested with reasonable certainty, the law will give it effect. Crisp v. Crisp, 61 Md. 149; Cherbonnier Goodwin, 79 Md. 55, 28 A. 894; Demill v. Reid, 71 Md. 175, 17 A. 1014; Larmour v. Rich, 71 Md. 369, 18 A. 702; Ridgely v.......
  • Myers v. McClurg
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 1916
    ... ... and the death of the testator, respectively, and the case ... would then have been one of the class to which Crisp v ... Crisp, 61 Md. 149, and the others first cited belong ... But a future period having been fixed, and the time of its ... occurrence having ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT