Galard v. Winans
| Decision Date | 03 December 1909 |
| Citation | 74 A. 626,111 Md. 434 |
| Parties | GALARD, Prince de Bearn et Chalais, v. WINANS et al. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City; George M. Sharp Judge.
Action by Louis E. J. H. Galard, Prince de Bearn et Chalais, against Ross R. Winans and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and PEARCE, BURKE, and SCHMUCKER, JJ.
Maurice Leon and Redmond C. Stewart, for appellant.
John E Semmes and Bernard Carter, for appellees.
The appeal in this case was taken from a decree of circuit court No. 2 of Baltimore city dismissing a bill filed by the appellant. The purpose of the bill was to procure the construction of a deed of trust and of a will executing a power of appointment conferred upon the testatrix by the deed; and also to have certain proceedings of the orphans' court of Baltimore city declared void and the releases given in pursuance thereof canceled and set aside.
The deed of trust was made in favor of the appellant's wife for her life by her father, on the eve of her marriage, and it gave to her an unrestrained power of testamentary appointment of the corpus of the trust estate. By her will made after her marriage, she gave her entire estate absolutely to her husband. After her death the orphans' court undertook to administer upon the property which had passed under the deed and the appointment, consisting of railroad bonds, as if it had been her own property, and distributed it one-third to the appellant as her surviving husband, and the remaining two-thirds to her two surviving children, for whom he was made guardian. The bonds were delivered to the appellant, one-third in his own right, and the residue as guardian for his children, and he executed releases therefor to the administrators of his wife's estate and the trustees under the deed of trust. Within two and a half months after receiving the bonds and executing the releases, the appellant filed his bill in the present case, insisting that upon his wife's death the entire corpus of the trust estate became his individual property in his own right under the operation of the deed of trust, by virtue of the devise in his favor in her will which constituted an exercise of the power of appointment conferred on her by the deed, and that the whole of the proceedings by which two-thirds of the property had been awarded to his children were erroneous and void, and that he was entitled to have them annulled and set aside. After hearing the case, the learned judge of the court below held that, through the execution of the power of appointment by his wife in her will, the appellant became entitled in his own right to the whole of the property conveyed to the trustees by the deed of trust; but the bill was dismissed because the judge was of the opinion that the appellant had forfeited his right to relief in equity by his acquiescence and co-operation in the various steps by means of which two-thirds of the property had been awarded to his children.
An outline of the material facts, appearing in the record, sufficient for the purposes of this opinion, may be stated as follows: On June 19, 1905, Ross R. Winans, an American citizen residing in Baltimore, but then temporarily in Paris, executed, in the latter city, a deed of trust to himself and Ferdinand C. Latrobe, also of Baltimore, conveying to them railway mortgage bonds of the par value of $284,000 upon trust first "to receive the interest and income thereof and apply the same to the use of Beatrice Winans (the grantor's daughter) during her life free from the disposal or incumbrance or the control of any husband and as her separate estate; ***" and, secondly, "upon the further trust, upon the death of the said Beatrice Winans, to dispose of the capital of the fund hereby created in such manner and to and among such person or persons and in such amounts as the said Beatrice Winans may by a valid will and testament duly executed appoint and upon such limitation by way of trust or otherwise as in the discretion of the said Beatrice Winans may be lawfully devised." There were other alternative trusts to take effect if Beatrice Winans died intestate; but as they never became operative it is unnecessary to notice them here. The deed also contained provisions for changes in the investment of the corpus of the trust fund and the filling of vacancies which might occur in the trusteeship. The deed of trust was made in contemplation of the marriage, which occurred a few days after its execution, of Beatrice Winans to the appellant, the Prince of Bearn and Chalais, who is a French citizen engaged in the diplomatic service of his country. A marriage settlement was also made between the prince and his intended wife prior to their marriage. The object of the deed of trust and marriage settlement was to provide for Miss Winans after her marriage a suitable income and to secure to her the separate enjoyment of her estate.
On June 29, 1905, after Miss Winans had become the Princess of Bearn and Chalais by her marriage to the appellant, she executed a will in Paris giving him her entire estate. The will, omitting the formal parts, was in the following language: On October 17, 1907, the Princess de Bearn (née Winans) died at St. Petersburg, Russia, where her husband was serving as secretary of the French Embassy. She left two children surviving her. On November 7th the appellant wrote from St. Petersburg to Mr. Winans at Baltimore that his wife, Beatrice, had made a will in his favor, and asked whether he should forward it to America or sent it to Mr. Winans' lawyer. In the letter the appellant said: "Naturally my intention is to keep Beatrice's fortune for her children and turn it over to them at their majority, but I want to fulfill all the formalities, to have it deposited under my name and to be able to touch the income quarterly as formerly." Mr. Winans, in response to the appellant's letter, cabled him on November 17, 1907, to take the will to Mr. Jacobus in Paris, who would have it legally probated and direct the trustees as to the transfer of the securities and also prepare releases for them. Mr. Jacobus was an American lawyer attached to an advocate's office in Paris, but was not a member of the French bar. Both he and Mr. Kelley, to whose office he was attached, had been employed by Mr. Winans to represent him in the preparation of the deed of trust and the marriage settlement. Mr. Winans also at the same time wrote to Jacobus informing him that the will would be brought to his office by the appellant, and telling him where to find the deed of trust, and requesting him to settle up the matter as soon as he could. In Mr. Winans' letter was inclosed one from Mr. Latrobe to Mr. Jacobus informing him that the trustees were ready to transfer the securities "to whoever under the will and the laws of France may be entitled to receive the same." The appellant, on receipt of Mr. Winans' cablegram, took the will to Mr. Jacobus in Paris, informing him that he had brought it at Mr. Winans' request. Mr. Jacobus read to him the letters from Mr. Winans and Mr. Latrobe, and discussed the situation with him at some length. He told the appellant that, as his wife had left two children, they were, under the French law, entitled to a "reserve" of two-thirds of her estate, and he was entitled, under her will, to only one-third of it, and advised that the will be sent to America for probate. The appellant stated that he had understood the effect of the deed of trust to be to confer on his wife the power to dispose of the whole of her estate; but, on being advised by Mr. Jacobus that, his wife having become French through her marriage to him, her estate must be divided according to the French law, he replied that he would leave the matter to Mr. Jacobus and Mr. Winans, as he knew that the latter would do the proper thing. Jacobus wrote to Mr. Winans on December 6, 1907, informing him that he had received the will from the appellant and sent it to him by registered mail. He also stated as a first impression that, as the Princess de Bearn had become a French citizen by her marriage, her children had an interest in her estate and promised to examine the matter more closely and give him exact advice later. On December 30th he wrote again to Mr. Winans that further examination had convinced him that the princess could not dispose of more than one-third of her entire estate because of the fact that she left two children, and quoted to him in support of that view two sections from the French Civil Code restraining the donation by persons of their own property by will. Those sections, when translated, read as follows:
Jacobus in the same letter informed Mr. Winans that under the French law the father was the guardian of his minor children, and as such had the right to receive and receipt for any property coming to them, and suggested that he and Mr. Latrobe have the French law proven to the Baltimore court and...
To continue reading
Request your trial