Hohman v. Hohman
| Decision Date | 20 April 1933 |
| Docket Number | 40. |
| Citation | Hohman v. Hohman, 164 Md. 594, 165 A. 812 (Md. 1933) |
| Parties | HOHMAN ET AL. v. HOHMAN ET AL. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit CourtNo. 2 of Baltimore City; H. Arthur Stump Judge.
Suit by John J. Hohman and others against Charles G. Hohman and others.From an adverse decree, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before BOND, C.J., and URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT, DIGGES, PARKE and SLOAN, JJ.
David Ash and Philip E. Wolfe, both of Baltimore, for appellants.
J Morfit Mullen and R. Contee Rose, both of Baltimore (Walter H. Buck, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.
In this casea bill was filed by the children of John J. Hohman, a deceased son of Henrietta Hohman, against the executors of her will, and all the beneficiaries thereunder other than the plaintiffs and a deceased daughter for whom her executor is substituted.
The said testatrix in the fourth clause of her will set out the real and personal property owned by her and valued each item "for the purpose of making division of my estate among my nine children as hereinafter provided."
In the fifth clause she authorized and directed her executors "to appraise the whole of my estate, real and personal not herein specifically bequeathed, the values of the properties mentioned in the Fourth clause hereof shall control as to those, all other properties shall be valued at the then market value.After they have appraised the same, I authorize and direct them to divide the same into nine equal parts, one of which, I give, devise and bequeath unto each of my nine children, John J., Charles G., George A., Conrad P., Henry J., Frederick William and Franklin C. Hohman, Elizabeth E. Orem and Clara V. Keller, absolutely.
In the sixth clause she appoints her son John J. Hohman and her daughter Elizabeth E. Oremexecutors without bond, and provides that:
The bill was dated February 3, 1916.In the following June testatrix executed the first codicil to her will, wherein she gave the one-ninth part previously given to her daughter Clara V. Keller, to her daughter Elizabeth E. Orem, trustee, and her successors, in trust to hold and manage, invest, and reinvest the same and to pay the income therefrom to the said Clara V. Keller, until such time as said trustee or her successors should be satisfied that it would be for the interest of said Clara to have the absolute title to her part, when the trustee and her successors are directed to convey same to her clear of the trust.It is also provided that the said Clara shall have the right to dispose of her part by will, and that in event of her death intestate before the conveyance to her, her part shall be conveyed to her surviving children, or if no children surviving, then to her heirs at law.
By a second codicil dated February 3, 1921, she revoked the devise of No. 2032 East Monument street to her said four first-mentioned sons, and devised the same together with No. 2030 East Monument to her daughter Clara V. Keller, for life, and after her death to said sons.
By a third codicil dated June 23, 1922, John J. Hohman, one of the children mentioned in the fifth paragraph of the will, having died, she directs her executors to divide all of the properties referred to in said paragraph into eight parts instead of nine, seven of which she devises and bequeaths to her surviving children other than Clara, and the remaining eighth part to Elizabeth E. Orem, trustee, and her successors in trust for her daughter Clara She also directs that if any of her children then living shall predecease her leaving children, the distributive share of the one so dying as devised and bequeathed in her will and codicils shall be void, but in lieu thereof places a charge upon the distributive share of the children living at the time of her death of a sum of money equal to the value of the distributive share in her estate to which the child so dying would have been entitled to receive if living, "which I give, devise and bequeath unto the children of my said child so dying, per stirpes and not per capita, to be paid under the same conditions and provisions as herein provided as to the distributive interests of my son, John J. Hohman, deceased."
Charles C. Hohman is substituted for her deceased son as one of the executors.
The bill of complaint was filed on March 28, 1932.It alleges that the testatrix died on March 16, 1926; that letters testamentary were granted to the executors on March 22, 1926 that the estate consisted of a large number of ground rents as well as improved lots of land, together with stalls in markets in Baltimore, together with other property; that the inventory filed in the orphans' court does not include any of said property, excepting certain alleged stock named therein amounting to $3,120, and cash amounting to $593.21; that plaintiffs have no knowledge of the extent of the estate and they desire discovery in relation thereto.It recites the listing and valuation of property in the will, and alleges that said properties have yielded large rents since the death of the testatrix of which no account has been rendered to plaintiffs, and that it is necessary for the court to assume jurisdiction of said properties and appoint a receiver; that Clara V. Keller, a daughter of testatrix, died testate on April 16, 1931, leaving neither husband nor child or children, having appointed Elizabeth E. Orem executrix of her will.It recites the provisions of the will directing appraisement and distribution and alleges that Charles G., George A., and Conrad P. Hohman have taken their distributive shares and enjoyed it ever since the time of the death of the testatrix, but that plaintiffs have received no part of their distributive shares; that by an agreement between the parties the said three sons agreed to pay the sum of $149,421.87 for the property allotted to them by the will, subject to the terms and conditions in said agreement set forth; it recites the provisions of the third codicil in regard to the charge of plaintiffs' legacies upon the other eight shares and the direction that plaintiffs be paid within a period of five years with interest, and alleges that more than five years having elapsed plaintiffs"are entitled to distribution in the premises, and to receive their respective shares of said estate; that they have frequently requested of said executors, discovery of the properties in said estate, as well as of the rents, profits and income thereof, as herein prayed; accounting of both the estate and the rents, income and profits thereof, and distribution of said estate; but said executors and each of them, have unlawfully failed to comply with said requests or any part thereof"; that plaintiffs"are ready, willing and able to do whatever equities may be of them required in the premises"; and that they desire the court to take jurisdiction of the estate that it may conserve the same and prevent the waste or dissipation thereof; "that...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Goldsborough v. De Witt
... ... 3, § 513, p. 1770; ... Dennis v. Dennis, 15 Md. 73, 106, 123, 124; Perry on ... Trusts (2d Ed.) vol. 2, § 528, p. 894; Hohman v ... Hohman, 164 Md. 594, 616, 165 A. 812. Compare Tate ... v. Norton, 94 U.S. 746, 24 L.Ed. 222, 223; Sewell v ... Slingluff, 62 Md. 592, ... ...
-
Soehnlein v. Pumphrey
... ... defrauded unless the promise is performed. Moale v ... Buchanan, 11 Gill. & J. 314, 324; Hohman v ... Hohman, 164 Md. 594, 616, 165 A. 812. Thus, possession ... of land by a donee in pursuance of an oral gift and the ... making of permanent ... ...
-
Whiteley v. Schoenlein
...Md. 463, 467, 63 A. 1070, 115 Am.St.Rep. 367, 7 Ann.Cas. 1140; Singer Const. Co. v. Goldsborough, 147 Md. 628, 128 A. 754; Hohman v. Hohman, 164 Md. 594, 165 A. 812. As the contention that the bill of complaint does not show mutuality in the alleged promise or obligation assumed by the appe......
-
Coastwise Petroleum Co. v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey
... ... v. Nattans, 130 Md. 465, ... 472, 100 A. 736; Thompson v. Thomas & Thompson Co., ... 132 Md. 483, 486, 104 A. 49, all leaseholds, and Hohman ... v. Hohman, 164 Md. 594, 616, 165 A. 812, affecting real ... property. An examination of those cases shows that there was ... part performance ... ...