Halsey v. Convention of Protestant Episcopal Church in Diocese of Md.

• Decision Date: 04 February 1892
• Citation: 23 A. 781,75 Md. 275
• Parties: HALSEY et al. v. CONVENTION OF PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN DIOCESE OF MARYLAND et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

23 A. 781

75 Md. 275

HALSEY et al.

v. CONVENTION OF PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN DIOCESE OF MARYLAND et al.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Feb. 4, 1892.

Appeal from circuit court of Baltimore city.

Bill filed by the Safe-Deposit & Trust Company of Baltimore, administrator c. t. a. of Susanna Warfield, deceased, against the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Maryland and others, for the construction of the will, the administration of certain trusts declared therein, and the settlement of the estate under the direction of a court of equity. From certain parts of the decree defendants Rebecca E. Halsey and others appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before Alvey, C. J., and Miller, Robinson, Bryan, McSherry, and Fowler, JJ.

J. V. L. Findlay and Thomas Mackensie, for appellants.

Skipwith Wilmer, Daniel M. Thomas, Fisher, Bruce & Fisher, C. H. Wyatt, Morrison, Munnikhuysen & Bond, and Jos. S. Goldsmith, for appellees.

ROBINSON, J. This is a bill filed for the purpose of obtaining a construction of the will of the late Susanna Warfield, and for the purpose of having certain trusts declared therein administered, and the estate settled, under the direction of a court of equity. The main questions are—">First, whether certain devises and bequests made to the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Maryland are valid devises and bequests; secondly, to whom, and in what proportions, are the legacies bequeathed to George W. Holmes and Dr. Lewis Holmes both of whom died in the life-time of the testatrix, to be distributed; and, thirdly, whether the bequest of $5,000 to each of the executors is to be construed as a bequest to them in their character as executors or to them as individuals.

1. In the first clause of the will the testatrix devised the Groveland farm, on which she resided, to her nephew George W. Holmes for life, and upon his death to her nephew Dr. Lewis Holmes for life, and upon his death she directed that 100 acres of "the said Groveland farm, including the portion where the mansion and surrounding outbuildings are located, should be set apart by her executor and trustee should she fail to do so herself; and the 100 acres thus to be set apart, with buildings, improvements, furniture, pictures, portraits, and silver, "she devised to the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Maryland, a body corporate, and its successors, forever, to be held as a place for a church school for boys, to be under the control and supervision of said corporation. The said school she directed should be called "the 'Warfield College,' in memory of her brother, who formerly owned the Groveland farm," and who intended himself to make a like disposition of said property. By the second clause of the will, after providing a fund of $20,000 "face value in bonds or stocks or other good securities, the income of which was to be paid to her sister Anna E. Wade for life, the testatrix directed that $5,000 of said fund should, at the death of Mrs. Wade," be paid to the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Maryland, as an endowment to the abovementioned Warfield College. By the fifteenth clause she gave whatever amount of money should be to her credit, at the time of her death, in the Savings Bank of Baltimore, to the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Maryland, as a further endowment for the Warfield College. Now, by a codicil made three years after the date of will, after referring to the gift in her will of the Groveland estate, etc., to her nephews George W. Holmes and Lewis Holmes, and at their death to become an Episcopal Church College, to be named after her brother, she says: "As Summerfield Holmes and Dr. Lewis Holmes are now dead, and all things changed, I have to change my will also; and as the church does not wish to be bothered with so much land, neither does George W. Holmes, it is my great desire to sell all the land but 50 acres, and the proceeds of the sale to be invested in some good securities, for the benefit of the Warfield College."

Construing the will and codicil together, there can be no question as to the testatrix's intention in regard to the disposition of the Groveland property; and, as thus construed, the codicil operates as a revocation of the first clause of the will in two respects, and in these two only: First, to reduce the quantity of land devised to the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Maryland for a church school from 100 acres to 50 acres, the said 50 acres to include the mansion-house and outbuildings and iraprovements; and, secondly, she directs the remaining portion of the farm to be sold, and the proceeds to be invested for the benefit of the college. And, such being the case, the question is whether the devise thus made to the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Maryland is a valid devise; and this can hardly be considered an open question in this state. St. 43 Eliz., in regard to charities, is not, it is true, in force here, but it is well settled that a court of chancery has jurisdiction, independent altogether of the statute, to enforce a trust for charitable and religious purposes, provided the devise or bequest be made to a person or body corporate capable of taking and holding the property so devised and bequeathed, and provided, further, the object and character of the trust be definite and certain. When these exist,—when the gift is made to one capable of taking it, and when the trust is declared in definite terms, —a court of chancery has the same power to enforce such a trust for charitable and religious purposes as it has to enforce a trust for any other purpose. Barnum v. Mayor, 62 Md. 293; Crisp v. Crisp, 65 Md. 422, 5 Atl. Rep. 421: Church v. Snively, 67 Md. 493, 10 Atl. Rep. 244. And, if so, the question resolves itself to this: Is the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Maryland capable of taking property by gift or devise for the purpose of founding and maintaining a church school for boys? And in regard to this there cannot be, it seems to us, any contention. It is now, and has been for years, a lawfully incorporated body; and by Act 1878, c. 403, the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church for the Diocese of Maryland is...